10 WL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2) 22 23 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 2014-201-CF Plaintiff, vs. TERRY TRUSSELL, Defendant . / PROCEEDING: MOTION HEARING (TELEPHONIC) BEFORE: The Honorable James C, Hankinson Circuit Judge DATE: April 15, 2016 TIME: 10:00 a.m. PLACE Dixie County Courthouse Cross City, Florida TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES: WILLIAM N. MEGGS, ESQUIRE KAREN BRODEEN, ESQUIRE Assistant State Attorney Senior Assistant Attorney General 301 South Monroe Street The Capital, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Attorney for the state Attorney for Melanie Vaughn and Judge Gregory S. Parker INGER M. GARCIA, ESQUIRE Post Office Box 11933 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 Attorney for the Defendant WILLIAM SPICOLA, ESQUIRE Assistant General Counsel The Capital, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 RIGINAL Attorney for Governor Rick Scott pigital Court Reporter Third Judscss1 carcuse (3674582139910 u 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS (The following proceedings were held in open court, with all parties appearing telephonically, to-wit:) THE COURT: This is Judge Hankinson, is everybody on the line? THE CLERK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Hello? (Indiscernible), Ms. Johnson? THE CLERK: You have Christie Johnson, Ms. Garcia -- MS. GARCIA: (Yes, Ms. Garcia and you have Terry Trussell. THE COURT: (Indiscernible). some form or fashion (indiscernible), Digital Court Reporting, Ms. Johnson? THE CLERK: Yes, sir, I have Court Recording on. THE COURT: Okay. I’ve got three people here, 1/11 let them for the record identify themselves, starting with the state attorney. MR. MEGGS: William Meggs with the State Attorney's Office. MR. SPICOLA: All right. William spicola for Governor Rick Scott. MS. BRODBEN: Xaren Brodeen for Melanie Vaughn and Judge Parker. THE COURT: Okay. Let's first take up the matter Digieal Court Reporter Third Judicial cirouit (Gs6)458-1333,10 iT 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. spicola was here on, because frankly when we broke on Wednesday, I thought we were just going to deal with that on the pleadings. So I guess he became aware of this hearing and has decided to appear. And I assume you’re here on the subpoena issued to Governor Scott, is that correct, Mr. Spicola? MR. SPICOLA: Yes, Your Honor MS. GARCIA: Wait. MR, SPICOLA: We filed ajmotion to quash MS. GARCIA: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes? MS. GARCIA: You gave me till Wednesday to respond to that motion, so I’m not ‘prepared to argue it today THE COURT: Well, let’s just respond orally instead - MS. GARCIA: I'm not prepared today THE COURT: -- because you said you were going to be tied up next week anyway. So I’ve read the motion, you can respond. MS. GARCIA: Your Honor, I’m sorry, I’m not prepared to respond to that. I was making calls to the Governor, T have documents to prepare, a response to file. I’m prepared today for what‘s noticed, which is a motion to allow compelled testimony. THE COURT: All right. I’m going to grant the motion to quash the subpoena to Governor Scott; I think it’s pretty Digital Court Reporter ‘Third Judicial cizeult (Jae) 458-233310 W 2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 clear cut. $0, Mr. Spicola, if you'll do an order to that effect? MR. SPICOLA: Yes, Your Honor THE COURT: Next, let’s do the emergency motion to quash subpoena on Melanie Vaughn, we have Ms. Brodeen here. I’ve read those pleadings, you can respond to that, Ms. Garcia MS. GARCIA: I’m sorry, Your Honor, that wasn’t set for hearing today either. THE COURT: Yes, that specifically was set for a hearing today. MS. GARCIA:.I have no notice for that, Your Honor, I'm sorry. THE COURT: Well, the notice went out yesterday on that this is Judge Parker's judicial assistant, Melanie Vaughn You wish to be heard on that emergency motion? MS. GARCIA: Yes THE COURT: All right. You can be heard MS. GARCIA: And then I’d like to go back to the Governor. Your Honor, I'm not sure how this could possibly be an emergency. Because since January, Terry and I have been emailing back and forth, and she accepted service for both Parker and Vaughn. She’s the one that chose Tallahassee as the location for the depositions. She’s had three months to tell me she had a problem with the deposition of Melanie Jennifer 1. megrove pigital Court Reporter Third Jugieia: cireule (386) 456-1333,10 1 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Vaughn, so I don’t understand how this could possibly be an emergency that has to be considered today As far as the documents to Melanie Vaughn, I have no problem with her coming with no documents, because they are the same documents that are attached to Judge Parker and his -- and the records custodian, and she made clear that Judge Parker is his own records custodian. so I assume he’11 bring the documents, so I don’t have problem with you correcting the portion of the duces tecum. But as far as her testimony, there’s no reason for her not to be there. I have a right to her deposition, pursuant\to the rules. THE COURT: Then tell me what relevant testimony you would anticipate from Ms. Vaughn MS. GARCIA: That‘s a 10-minute answer, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Ms. GARCIA: She's part and parcel. She’s in emails of conversations back and forth between Siegmeister and Judge Parker and Siegmeister’s JAs and my client and the Dixie county Clerk. She was part of the conversation, she knows what happened. She's a material witness to the different actions of the parties who are going to be at trial. She knows what her judge does; there’s documentation with her name in it in the emails, with her responses directly that I need to discuss with her because she’s the one with personal knowledge. It Jennifer b. Musgrove bigical court Reporter Third Judicial carcuit (986) 458-139310 u 12 13, 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 24 25 all goes to our defenses, Your Honor, of good faith and immunity and, I mean, I could go on for 20 minutes, Judge. THE COURT: Tell me what you think I need to know. MS. GARCIA: She has specific information as to what was done correctly or incorrectly by the judges, the state attorneys, the clerk of court, the sheriff, my client. We intend to call her as a witness at trial; she'll be receiving her subpoena for trial, and the rules allow me to call her as awitness. It doesn’t say limited just to the state Attorney, the State AttOrney’s witnesses, I'm allowed to call any witness I want to trial, your Honor THE COURT: This isn’t about trial subpoena, this is about ‘depositions. MS. GARCIA: I'm allowed to depose her to seek information that’s relevant to the case that may be material to my case and my defenses. THE COURT: I agree, if you tell me something that she knows that’s relevant. MS. GARCIA: She’s in the emails and the communications so she knows about all these communications, she knows about the schedule, she’s knows when judges came aboard, she knows what conversations were made by who, she knows who determined if my client’s a sovereign citizen or not. She knows when things were set for the grand jury, when the judge entered orders, when petitions were filed or not bigital court Report Third Judicial circu: (336) 458-1233,10 W 2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 2 24 25 filed, that we never received the discovery till it was brought to our attention by Siegmeister. There's a lot of information she knows, Your Honor THE COURT: Ms. Brodeen? MS. BRODEEN: Well, first I’d like to address why this is an emergency motion originally, Judge Parker and the records custodian, Melanie Vaughn, were improperly served by somebody by somebody who handed the subpoenas to Judge Parker and was not with the local sheriff’s office, and Judge Parker asked, Are you a certified process server? No: I got involved to represent them, we started working on schedules. This is the third agreed date and I finally got a notice from her after I told her on March 29°", We can do April 21. and I suggested Tallahassee, which is where the videographer is based and she was fine with that. I kept asking for the notices, she said she was going to get them. 1 didn’t get the notices and subpoenas until April 13°. and then I filed this emergency motion the very next day, that’s why it’s an emergency date. As for whether she’s a witness, my understanding’s she’s not listed as a witness by either party, and I don’t think I've heard anything from Ms. Garcia about direct, firsthand knowledge she has about anything relevant. I mean, she says there’s a lot of communications she has the knowledge about Jennifer L. muegrove pigival Court Reporcer Third Judieia2 ciseule (336) 458-139310 i 12 13 14 15 16 v7 18 19 20 2 22 24 25 that goes to substance that is relevant that she has firsthand. 1 haven’t heard anything like that to show that she can testify about something that would be admissible in court, or at least something admissible in court. And also I’d like to add, the original subpoena that was improperly served listed eight categories of documents. 1 was shocked when I saw the 38 categories, including umpteen categories THE COURT: That’s not really an issue she’s admitted and acknowledged that sudge Parker’s the one that has the same list and as long he’s not asserting that he’s the wrong custodian as»opposed to Ms. Vaughn, that’s really not an issue: Anything else? MS. BRODEEN: Well, I guess 1/11 add that a lot of those documents probably don’t exist, and if they're not produced, that’s why they’re not produced. They’re not in his custody THE COURT: I've not heard anything from anyone, from Judge Parker, so I’11 let them deal with that Further, Ms. Garcia? MS. GARCIA: Your Honor, I guess, the only thing further, again, is I have an email, January 22", I agree to accept service of the new subpoena for convenience, location date and time. It’s been served, I have agreed to waive the documents. She picked Tallahassee, she picked that date. I pigical coure Report Third Judicial chzeule (36) 458-133510 12 @ » 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 ai 2 23 e* 25 noticed it for her convenience on that date. And that client is very relevant. As I said, her name is in emails; she's involved in all of the communications and she has significant personal knowledge of what took place in regards to any compliance or noncompliance with statute 905, 905.27; and all of the issues in how the Dixie County handled this grand jury which goes to my ¢lient’s numerous defenses including immunity, self-defense, common law grand jury; when, you know, when the judges were available or not available, pursuant to the statute, and what it's very relevant for information for my cliént’s defense, Your Honor. THE COURT: . I’m going to grant the motion to quash the discovery deposition subpoena for Ms. Vaughn. I’ve signed an order to that effect. All right. So ify‘all want to excuse yourselves, you're free to g0, you're free to stay, that’s up to you. MS. BRODEEN: Thank you, Your Honor, (indiscernible) stay on behalf of Judge Parker (indiscernible) in the motion. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SPICOLA: Well get that order to your office on Monday, Judge. THE COURT: All right. Now, let’s do the motion, I have no idea what the title of it is, but your motion, Ms. Garcia, on the immunity and so forth, you can be heard. MS. GARCIA: Yes, Your Honor, and I have a question Jennifer b. Musgrove pigital Court Reporter10 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 2 24 25 10 before I go into a long diatribe here. And my first question for you, Your Honor, is on the secrecy portion of the motion, because it’s really kind of a bifurcated motion, it deals with allowing the testimony of these numerous witnesses under 905.27, due to the particularized need that I pled, and it states that you have to enter a court order to allow them to téstify, they won't be subject to any criminal contempt. So I'd like to know if you want me to argue that whole issue or if Your Honor‘s granting that portion? Is that what they intended (indiscernible) . THE COURT: I’m not granting anything, you need to argue what your relief you're requesting from me. I have your Prayer for relief and that’s kind of what I’m working off of here in front of me. So you listed four categories that you're requesting for prayer for relief, so I would suggest you go through those. MS. GARCIA: Okay. Well, I -- the first thing I'd like to do then, Your Honor, is clarify. Do you have the motion in front of you? THE COURT: I have a computer version of it and I have one available, I’ve read it all. What I’ve got in front of me is your prayer for relief, I printed that part of it out MS. GARCIA: Okay. Because I'd like to point out to you certain paragraphs in the motion. Third Judioial circuit (386) 456-133310 1 12 13, 14 45 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 1 THE COURT: You may. MS. GARCIA: Okay. On page 13, paragraph 11, where we -- where we were initially requesting the immunity. I'm going to be filing a separate motion, Your Honor, for immunity and for motions to dismiss for immunity as a defense. So I’m not seeking, at this juncture on just this particular motion for you to enter an order for complete immunity for these people to testify Because my understanding is that for purposes of the deposition all I need is a court order under 905.27 allowing them to testify so they won’t be subject to criminal contempt for testifying. I’m going to be dealing with immunity as a separate issue, as a separate defense in the jury instructions under and I did do the Cliff Berry. So I'm not seeking research, Your Honor, there are bases for you to enter the immunity. However, there’s other motions I need to file, so they can be heard in conjunction with it, and a hearing set separately on those particular issues. So on that part of this motion, I’m not requesting complete immunity, I’m just requesting that under the statutory immunity 905.27, that you allow them to testify without being subjected to any contempt. Because that’s really what Siegmeister was asking for in his statements, and that’s on page 22 of the motion Jenniter 1. Musgrove Digital court Reporver Third Judicia! cirewit (340) 458-1333,10 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 12 Now, as far as the secrecy issues, Your -- if you'd like me to argue that, I can set forth our bases for the particularized need THE COURT: I think you need to argue whatever it is you want me to rule on, Ms. Garcia. MS. GARCIA: Okay. Well, this case deals with a statutory grand jury foreman, and he’s being charged under 843.0855, It’s purportedly deliberately impersonating or falsely acting as a public official, as well as section (3), (4), and (5). Now, all three -~/all three sections that he’s being charged under is in this statute, Your Honor, have an intent portion, Whether it’s fraudulent, knowingly fraudulent, this is a specific intent statute And paragraph two, says that the person has to deliberately impersonate or falsely act, that's the intent portion of paragraph two. Under paragraph three, it has to be knowing or having reason to know the contents of the documented proceeding or the basis to be fraudulent. Under paragraph four, a person has to falsely under the color of law attempt to intimidate or harass. So this is a specific intent statute, Your Honor, T have defenses that will need to be addressed. And to address these defenses properly and to present to the jury the full Jennifer &. Musgrove Digital Coure Reporter (396/450-133310 1 2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 2 24 25 13 story, the issues that happened with the statutory grand jury are very relevant. They go to the behavior of my client, of Siegmeister, of Parker, of Munkittrick, of Siegmeister’s JA of Dana, Dana's clerk. Everybody's actions from April 21", 2014, through August 1s of 2014 are very relevant. It goes to the intent factors, it goes to the good faith defense. I’ve laid out specifically in my motion the fact that we intend to use the applicable defense of good faith. Also, I’ve laid forth on page 14 through page 16, very specifically, specific issues that need to be addressed. and I can re-read them, Your Honor, or, you know, I’m not sure if you réad them or not, but -- THE COURT: I have read them. I have them in front of me MS. GARCIA: So those questions specifically are different questions that need to be addressed to deal with the issues of intent, as well as to defend against the elements of the crime. And this deals again, specifically with things that were said outside of the jury room, and actions that were taking place outside of the jury room, and some actions that were taking place inside the jury room. I do understand that there's certain secrecy involved inside the jury room, but I’m also being limited from any testimony outside the jury Jennifer £, msgrove Digital Core Reporter ‘™mird Judicial circute (386) 658-2339,10 1 12 1B 14 1 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 14 room as to what people did and why And then inside the jury room’s very relevant, as to irreconcilable differences that had taken place between the jury foreman and the State Attorney, and the resulting lack of assistance to the jury foreman by the Court or the state Attorney. And how the irreconcilable differences were handled and why they were handled that way and what was the motive of the -- of Siegmeister in this entire action And I’m not sure if you've had a chance to read any of his deposition or not THE COURT: I have. MS. GARCIA: You know, he’s made it very clear that from the beginning he had an issue with common law grand juries and sovereign citizens and personal threats that had been made against him prior. And he even made statements that, Well, had I known that he was on the actual grand jury, you know, by luck of the draw, basically, he wouldn’t have been there. So it shows the intent from the beginning to remove Mr. Trussell and set him up for this removal, and the interference, the potential interference, and interactions And Siegmeister agrees, as the purported victim and as State Attorney, that what happens in this room, given the fact that there were actually no deliberations, no vote, no Informations, Indictments, or presentments issued by the Jennifer &. Musgrove digital couzt Reporter (3e6)458-239910 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 15 statutory grand jury. He just was concerned to statements of the state Attorney. And he was using the oath of the -- well, I guess, Florida statute 905.19, and he was using the oath of the grand jurors under 905.10 as his defense to say it protects all statements. And he just wanted protection from you, as the judge on the criminal case, sO he would not be held in contempt for discussing this story or issue. and he’s happy to discuss it, and/it’s very relevant, he agreed it was very relevant. So I set forth again, through pages 16, all the different specific issues and questions and substance of what we want to argue to show the particularized need and the good faith. Then again, on page 16 under paragraph 18, we set forth, from page 16 to page 20, the different issues that I need to investigate through discovery, to offer and prove at trial, and to use for my pretrial motions in relation to my motions to dismiss based on certain defenses and certain actions taken. Now, when we go further on through, Your Honor, we also set forth clearly a memo of law in supporting for the waiver of the secrecy. And we provided the different statutes and case law in here and outlined it for you, as to why you have the authority to waive the secrecy for purposes of my client Digital Court Reporter Third Judicial cirouit (36) 458-2333,10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 16 defending himself in this criminal case. And we went through and explained specifically about the right to assemble, petition for redress. We went through and explained the different potential defenses from immunity, stand-your-ground, and the complete immunity. We went through specifically, too, when it came to section -- the Statue 905, the handbook, and the instructions setting forth your ability to enter an order allowing the Defense to present his defenses to the Court. We also set forth on pagé 37, clearly when it comes to the defense in the statute itself, of 803.0855(5) (b), it has @ defense right in the statute that says, This section does not prohibit individuals from assembling freely to express opinions or to designate group affiliation or association. And we have of page 37 of the motion, testimony from the State's witnesses, of Siegmeister, page 24, 25, lines 21 through 5, where he agrees that he has the right to freely assemble and discuss to form opinions. Also, from Agent Frank Linton, from his transcript of his depo, page 52, lines 17 through 24. He agreed that people absolutely have a right to assemble under the Constitution of laws and they have a right to ask someone to help them if they think there’s a violation of the law. Then you have Agent Annie White’s transcript, page 72, lines 1 through 11, and she agreed that they had a First venniter b, magzove Digital court Reporter tind Judieial circuit (Gae}458-133310 W 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 17 Amendment right to peacefully assemble and get together and decide when they think something's wrong and express their opinions. So there's some issues here under the Florida statute, as well as the judges opinions, as well as the actions taken and as well as the defenses to the statute that clearly discuss the right to assemble. And there was an allegation in the order of Parker, that this is some type of subversive activity and we have a right)to inguir Why? Where’d that come from? who came up with the idea? why is it is subversive? what’s the relationship between these parties? Who determined that my client was potentially a sovereign citizen? So there’s a lot of different questions that relate to the activities and the emails that were produced to me by Siegmeister in his deposition. specific emails were between him and the judges and his secretaries and the clerk stating Sovereign citizen??? And setting forth this whole political group and sovereignty and subversive activity. And then talking about the grand jury and his actions and what it was taken and the different procedure and order of the communications, and whether or not the judges were available for my client or not, whether or not the judges were just assisting the state attorneys, what the motives were of each person. Whose behavior was appropriate or not Third Judiotal cirouse (Gee195e-139910 uW 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 18 pursuant to the law? I have cited the cases in here, Your Honor, that deal. with your ability to compel testimony, a grand jury testimony, from Jenkins versus State, on page 40, 35 Fla. 737. It also cites State ex rel. Brown v. D well, seven -- 123 Fla. 785. It also goes into State versus Rivera, and T think, Your Honor, you said you have read this, it goes into In re Grand Jury Investigation; it goes into Wigmore Trafficante versus State, which talks about the accused rights to compulsory process, attendance (of witnesses, and the fundamental unfairness, which would be resulting by placing a man on criminal charges, and then denying him his means ‘to compel attendance of witnesses within the jurisdiction of the Court for possession of material facts, which show or tend to show his innocence of the charges and in State ex rel. Brown versus Dewell, accused on trial is entitled to the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to reach the testimony of witnesses given before a grand jury when it's shown that the testimony may be material to the issue at trial. Article I, Section 16(a) of the Florida Constitution allows my client the right to confrontation, and it’s actually broader in Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution It states in -- then as we go into the Bretherick case Your Honor, the Murray case, the Jenkins, and, like I said Jennifer 4. Musgrove pigieal Court Reporter Third Judicial cireuie (386) 450-133310 WL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 2: 24 25 19 again, it’s set forth in this motion. and I think we clearly set forth that there is no surmise or speculation acts of his activity. It’s the direct -- it’s directly and proximately relevant and material to Trussell's activities and anybody else in relation to the grand jury’s activity And there’s cases that support the position that we have set forth sufficient particularized needs And the ability under Section 905.27(1) (c), (a), (b), and (¢) to further justice. So I believe that we've set) forth enough facts in this motion, as well as what) I verbally told the Court as far as -- that these activities are material, to not only direct defenses in the statute, other defenses in the statute to Proving or disproving any elements of the crime, to showing the motive, to showing good faith, Your Honor, to showing complete immunity. Now, as far as the protection and immunity from the grand jurors, I’m going to go walk through that in a minute. But according to the instructions, and the handbook, and the statute read together, there is statutory immunity for the behavior of all these parties. You know, the judge, say the judge made a mistake, he has purported immunity according to the statute. And I just wanted that to be recognized. If the State Attorney made a mistake, I wanted his immunity to be recognized. If my vennifer b, Musgrove Digital Coure Reporter (306/456-219310 iW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2 24 25 20 client made a mistake, you know, he has the right to his defense and, you know, that can be determined in a defense, a motion to dismiss, or here. So the bottom line here, Your Honor, is we just want the truth to be able to come out, when nobody feels they’re going to be deprived or they have to hide, or feel compelled to testify against themselves when everybody according to the statute appears to be completely immune for their behaviors in relation to the statutory grand jury based on my reading of the law, when you read the law together, the handbook, the instructions, and)the statute We also»went through the necessity and the constitutionality, Your Honor, and we’ve wrote down, you know, the -- what +- which we're going to be addressing in another motion, thé constitutionality portion of this, where we discuss the content-based discrimination against my client. And that’s also an issue for pretrial motions. and I have a right to discovery, Your Honor, not only for my trials, but for my pretrial motions. And I intend on filing my pretrial motions to declare it unconstitutional -- to dismiss and to suppress. And this discovery of everybody's behavior’s going to be necessary for all of my pretrial motions. We also go through the necessity, the two-part test of necessity. We go through the grand juror oath, the moral Jennifer L. Musgrove Digital Court Reporter Third Judicial ciroust (dee)ase-139310 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 23 24 25 2 obligation. The right to my client -- on page 52, the rights of my client to defend himself. That completely pierces the veil of grand jury secrecy regarding any deliberations or testimony, under 905.24 and 25. So we've set forth, I think, pretty specifically a (indiscernible) motion. And then we go through on page 54 Your Honor, and we discuss the specific charges against him again, and specify where it’s relevant. And then, we discuss again further duty to the foreman who presides, and what the grand juror can or can’t do, and that’s all important. And then, also individual immunity’s going to depend on the facts, but it does require a tiixed resolution of law and fact and we cited the cases. So we need to take our positions to be able to set forth in a proper full immunity motion for you, all the relevant facts by all the witnesses for our pretrial motion, which would include: Parker and Siegmeister, and Parker and Siegmeister’s JAs. We’ll file under a separate (indiscernible), we/re going to (indiscernible) for a pretrial hearing on the immunity, but we'll do it under the form of a motion to dismiss versus complete immunity at this juncture. And we cited Bretherick versus State, 170 766 [sic] Aravena versus Miami-Dade County, 928 1163 [sic], City of Gainesville versus State, 778 519 [sic], and Fletcher. And pigival Court Reporter Third Judieial circus (36) 458-133510 Ww 2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 2 these deal with complete immunity for grand jurors under the Florida Supreme Court and that’s part of the standard jury instructions, which I’m going to go over in a moment, Your Honor. And then, again, my client has the right to specifically defend against 843.0855(2), impersonating a public official. As well as section (3) and section (4) beéause there are intent requirements. Now, Your Honor, if I walk briefly through a few other things. Munkittrick, in her deposition on page 10, line 22 and these are all filed in court already, previously filed. for use of.any pretrial motions and for trial. she was asked about ‘the seven-page document that my client provided to her in relation to his irreconcilable differences with Mr. Siegmeister, because she was the judge who had sworn him in, and she was the judge who was appointed to run the grand jury until Judge Parker filed his appearance, I think, on August 7. At that point, when I requested her response to, what did she do with the seven-page document that she was given in relation to the irreconcilable differences, she basically stated that, you know, she never gave it to Judge Parker, she didn’t think it was something she was supposed to read, and she thought it was something about the grand jury for all she knew and it wasn’t something she should be reading venaster L, Musgrove10 1 12 B 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 2 And when I asked her, Did Judge Parker ever explain to you, when he assigned you, I’m assuming he assigned you to handle the grand jury? She said, Yes, to swear in that morning. I said, Did he assign you to continue to be available if there are any issues, or do you know if he ever took over? She said, That morning, I sworn him in And so, we have an issue of fact as to which judge was responsible. Which judge needed to respond to the irreconcilable differences? At what point was Judge Parker actually the judge in charge? What happened to the seven page document? and why didn’t the grand jury foreman’s complaint get to Judge Parker if he was the person? and why wasn’t there any communication ever between the judges and the grand jury foreman when there were irreconcilable differences? So these are all the issues of facts, Your Honor, that I have a right to go into. and all the depositions are pretty clear on the issues that I have brought up. Judge Munkittrick, I asked her on page 12, line 22, To this day have you ever read it or seen it, the page? And she said, No, I think I saw the first page, but I didn’t read it. 1 Googled my own name and apparently there was quite a bit that he and others had put on the internet about me. I didn’t read it then, I don’t have to read it now And she said, she -- then on line -- page 13, line 8, I Jennifer b, Musgrove Third Judicial Chroust (9e)458-139310 a 12 B 14 1 16 17 18, 19) 20 2 22 23 24 25 24 said, Of that particular document? Line 9, I assumed Donna Kay shredded right then So there’s an issue of fact of did the grand juror’s complaint of irreconcilable differences, pursuant to the statute, get shredded before Parker ever even got it? Did he even have knowledge if there was irreconcilable differences? At what point? And what was done to try to resolve it? And all of this, again, goes to my client’s ability to defend himself and to his good faith. I can go on, too, in Jeffery Siegmeister’s deposition, and in John Weed’ deposition. But, Your Honor, when it comes to the)law, under 4.1 of the instructions, the foreman has to preside over a session and see that they’re carried in an orderly fashion. And under Florida Statute 27.03, the State Attorney has certaim duties whenever it’s required by the grand jury. It says he shall, the State Attorney shall attend them for the purposes of examining witnesses in their presence, or of giving legal advice on any matter before them. And in this case, it clearly says, whenever required by the grand jury So we have a right to discuss with the State Attorney What was required by the grand jury? What were your communications with the grand jury foreman? There’s emails that were produced to me by Siegmeister prior to the July session, August -- the August 1% session vennifer b. Musgrove pigital Court Reporter Third Judicial circuit (3467458-1399,10 1 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 25 in relation to what the foreman wanted to do, What was going to be presented? What did he need from the State Attorney’ What was the State Attorney going to do? So there's issues as to Did the state Attorney do what needed to be done under 27.037 Also, under Florida Statute 905.19, it discusses the duties of the state Attorney. And it says, The State Attorney or an assistant state attorney shall attest sessions of the grand jury to examine witnesses and give legal advice about any matter cognizable by the grand jury Again, there's a qualification under 905.19, that qualification created irreconcilable differences. We have a right ‘to know from Siegmeister what those were. And we have @ right to know from the judges, how do they handle these differences? when did they know about these differences? What was done? Like I said, the state never produced in discovery to us at any time, the petition -- the petitions that Siegmeister supposedly filed and heard with Judge Parker, until Siegmeister -- and Dana brought it in December, or early January, for their depositions. The grand jury handbook also deals with on page 9, deals with two issues, Your Honor, which are very specific to what we're requesting. On page 9, there’s a portion that deals with secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. And it states pigical Coure Reporeer Taird Judicial circuse (396) 456-233510 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 the fact that the grand jury is protected -- the reason they protect the grand jurors is to basically protect them from pressure by other people. They protect the witnesses, so there’s no tampering You protect the person who’s being investigated or you want to make sure they don’t go and escape. So the purpose of the secrecy isn’t really affected here by you waiving or allowing the witnesses to testify with no fear of contempt, because nobody is being pressured or tampered with or escaping. Also, the next clause, protection and immunity of grand jurors on page 9.) It Says, Grand jurors are fully protected from actions against them by being an independent body answerable to no one except the court that empanels it. It says, The law gives the grand juror complete immunity for official acts. It also talks about, This complete protection for official acts obviously is vital to the operations of the grand jury and points out that the grand jurors should be citizens of unquestionable integrity and high character. Now, this immunity clause is in the law, Your Honor, and this is the immunity that I’m really requesting right now It's the fact that you say, under 905.27, you can testify due to the particular need, in this case, the defendant to represent himself properly in pretrial motions and at trial, because it'll further justice for him, there is good cause that’s set forth verbally and in this motion. And that venniter b. Musgrove Digital Court Reporter (946)498-1339,10 1 2 1B 14 13 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 2 24 25 27 nobody will be prosecuted under 905.27 for discussing the actions taken by anybody involved with this particular grand jury session. Now, Your Honor, when you go then to the instructions, under the instructions you have section 1.2, there’s an issue in relation to this. Because it says, It is my duty to instruct you concerning your duties and it is your duty to follow these instructions as you understand them. as you understand them, is an issue.) It goes to intent, it goes thought, it goes to the defense, it goes to who understood what, Your Honor. So alljthe actions and behaviors of all these parties will explain the understanding and prepare a complete -- a €omplete factual timeline for this Court to understand for pretrial motions ahd then for trial for the jury. Under 1.7 it says, You should bring your task most wholeheartedly and conscientious effort. The grand jury is the keystone of democracy. Grand jurors upon being called into service are expected to exercise their honest conviction and best judgment in the administration of justice. Grand juries operate freely, unhampered, and subject only to the restrictions -- the restraints fixed by limitations and requirements of the law itself. Again, this goes to everybody’s actions, everybody's efforts, the ideas. What is the honest conviction and best Third Judicial circust (Ge)a5e-139310 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 28 judgment of my client, as well as the other parties involved the State Attorney’s opinion, and the judges who were to be the person that my client should have been able to go to? ‘Then you have the instructions further on in section three. And section 3.1 says, It has the power to investigate public offices to determine if they’re being conducted according to law and good morals. It also has the power to investigate the conduct of public affairs by public officials and employees, including the power to inquire whether those officials are incompetent or lax in performance of their duties. Now, that’s also an issue. They're claiming that any documents that are filed or addressed are false. They're claiming that the intent is fraudulent. So we have a right to determine, you know, what powers these people have, what was investigated or not. Was the investigation impeded by the State Attorney or the judges? Was there a conflict between the grand jurors and the judges and the state Attorney? And how was it handled and was it handled according to the law? The grand -- section 3.2 of the instructions, The grand jury should investigate every offense affecting morals health, sanitation, general welfare of the county. It should inquire into matters of governmental administration including county institutions, buildings, officers -- venniter x. Musgrove pigital Coure Reporter Third Judicial Circuit (346)450-193910 WW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 29 offices, officers, when appropriate. Make presentments concerning physical, sanitary, general conditions. So again issues of fact in relation to, in relation to those issues Then under 3.4 there are no limitations on the grand jury telling the truth when circumstances justify it. We need to be able to tell the truth. The grand jury foreman needs to be able tell the truth. And we need to have the judge and the State Attorney also be able to tell the truth with no fear of reprise Then it says that no office’ or agency is above or beyond the reach of the grand jury. A publi¢ official or employee who conducts»public work in a) proper manner has no reason to fear the grand jury, and if there are reasons to do, you should not hesitate to call a public official or employee before you.We have questions, again, about who did what when. Under 4.9, It’s the duty of the judges of this court not only to initially charge the grand jury concerning its duties, but also to be available at all reasonable times to advise the grand jury in the event it becomes necessary. Tf at any time during your term you feel it necessary, you will call upon the court for assistance it can render you In this particular case, it appears the court repeatedly ignored my client. They shred his first complaint, didn’t even give it to Judge Parker, it appears. But without Jennifer L. Musgrove (986) 458-139310 u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 30 speaking to Judge Parker and his JA, we will not know what was done by the first judge until it got to Judge Parker. When did Judge Parker step in? What did they do? When did they communicate with Trussell, if they communicated with Trussell? what did they do to resolve these differences? 4.10, The grand jury has a duty to cooperate with any other grand jury. In this case it’s, is Trussell cooperating with the common law grand jury? Thére heeds to be an issue of fact. Is the common law grand jury an entity? Is it people just assembling?) Is there something in law that does not allow people to call themselves the common law grand jury? There‘s a whole issue as to when it came about. How id it come about? What is the relevance? what’s the legality or not? Then section five, disqualification of a grand juror. A grand juror is disqualified from participating if they’re related by blood or marriage. And then, a grand juror found to be disqualified may excuse himself, or may be excused by the court or a majority of the grand jurors. The court should promptly advise of the disqualification of any juror When in this case, we have a State Attorney testifying that he personally excused, I think, three different people one had moved, or one was in drug rehab, and then what happened with Trussell being disqualified. How did that come about? Who determined to disqualify him? Digital court. Reporter Third Judicial cireuse (336) 458-139)10 il 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 23 24 25 3 There's emails that were produced that completely one email, you have the -- Judge Parker telling him, If you don’t disqualify him, I'm going to, because the Supreme Court’s embarrassed by what happened in our county. and then in another email, you have people saying that there's petitions that weren’t produced until we got them in December. So it’s factual issues in question as to who disqualifies, when they disqualified. Was the disqualifications done correctly? Was there basis to even disqualify Trussell? and, you know, who did their behavior correctly or incorrectly? The law/also provides under 7.2.-- oh, I'm sorry, the six, under 6 and 6.1. 6.1 states that if someone is Gisqualified, the court will appoint a special state Attorney. Well, when Trussell complained to munkittrick, which apparently was shredded, who -- was any special state Attorney appointed? Was there any discussion with Trussell asking, What are your problems with this current state Attorney? What can we do? Do we need to appoint a State Attorney? How do we handle this? What was Siegmeister’s motive? So we have all these other issues we need to find out in discovery, Your Honor ‘Then when you get to 6.1, paragraph two, it says, The State Attorney will counsel, assist, and advise the grand Vennifer L. Musgrove bigieal Court Reporter Third Judicial circuit (396)450-239310 uw 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 32 jury. However, should any irreconcilable conflict arise between the State Attorney and the grand jury, the court is available for assisting in resolving the problem. Again, here’s the interest of fact, Your Honor. Who is available, when? What did they do? How did they respond? Did they respond? What was the basis? Is it legal, what was done or not? All these, again, are issues that goes to the defense. ‘Then when you go to 7.2,)The law provides that if a grand juror knows or has reason to believe that an indictable offense triable in the county and has been committed, the juror shall declare the facts to the other jurors for investigation. There’s an issue here, Your Honor, that when Trussell told the grand jury and Siegmeister that there was potential indictable offenses in this county, what was Siegmeister’s response? How did Siegmeister assist? Did Siegmeister interfere? what created their irreconcilable differences? Why are there irreconcilable differences? what happened to those? Are they indictable defenses or not? And so those are lots of issues, Your Honor, that need to be dealt with. Under 8.3, subversive activities law, there’s emails back and forth discussing subversive activity. There's orders that state there was subversive activity. supposedly, administrative orders were entered changing use of the Jennifer b. Musgrove pigital Court Reporter (946) 458-139310 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 33 courtrooms because of subversive activity. We have a right to find out: What subversive activity took place? What created that? who said it was subversive? Why are those emails flowing back and forth between the judges and the state attorneys? And the grand juror’s not even being called upon to say, Hey, if you have a problem with the State Attorney, how can we help, you? These are all issues of fact that We have a right to know, Your Honor. Under 9.3, it discusses theoath, and the oath is nine, 9.1 through 9.5.91 think the oath is where the State Attorney was-looking. and in the oath under 9.3, it says It‘s important that this’ part of the oath is binding on you the secrecy cannot be overemphasized, 1 charge you that you shall not under any circumstances discuss the matters to be kept secret, unless you are released by court order That's what we're seeking, we’re seeking the court order to protect everybody. It says, Your vote shall never been known, the opinion expressed by you or any matter shall never been known, and the testimony before shall never be -- the testimony given shall not be made known except by order of court. So basically under 9.3, we're seeking that you use 905.27 to allow the secrecy to be waived so the defendant can properly defend himself in this case and we can figure out venniter b, Musgrove Digital Court Reporter 006) 458-233310 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 34 what really happened. Then, under 9.5, The oath, like the grand jury system, is of ancient vintage. It is in substance the same oath as was administered to grand juries under common law. It is near perfect. Tt says, Its solemn dictates are -- is appropriate today as they have been for a long time. ‘Then you go to the conclusion, 10.1.) It says, You are to follow these charges, and having done so you should act according to the dictates of your own conscience and only in the best interest of the citizens of the county. There’s factual issues as/to Trussell’s conscience, and as to Siegmeister’s conscience, and Siegmeister’s political views and why Siegmeister felt that Trussell should have never been on the grand jury to begin with. Your Honor, that takes us then to the statute 905.01(2), The chief judge in any circuit may provide for the replacement of any grand juror, who for good cause is unable to complete the term of the grand jury. Such replacement shall be made by appropriate order of the chief judge from a list of prospective jurors. Again, that gets us back to the judge’s order, the petition, the motive, the emails. why did the chief judge determine? What is the good cause? Why was he unable to complete his term? under 905.24, two-four, Your Honor. It state, The grand Jennifer b. Musgrove Digital Court Reporter ‘hind Judicial circuit (306/456-133310 1 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 35 jury proceedings are secret, and a grand juror or an interpreter appointed pursuant to 905.6063(2) shall not disclose the nature or substance of the deliberations or vote. There were no deliberations or vote by the grand jury. But what there was, there was a presentation to the grand jury that potentially was, either you served or that’s what created the irreconcilable difference, I’m not sure, Your Honor. But we’re not seeking deliberation or vote, because there was no vote of the grand -- the statutory grand jury As far as the 905.27, Your Honor, this is the main statute that - itusays, Testimony shall not be disclosed and it gives ‘the exception. It says that the grand juror and the State attorney, or the assistant staté)attorney, or any other person, shall not disclose the testimony of a witness examined or other evidence received, except when required by the Court do disclose the testimony. And it gives three exceptions, (a), (b), and (c). To ascertain whether it’s consistent with the testimony given by the witness, determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury, or furthering justice. and under (1)(¢), it furthers justify allowing a client to defend himself in the criminal charges. Well, he’s basically looking at a death penalty. Jennifer 1. Musgrove Digital court Reporter Third Judicial circuit (daey4se-233310 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 36 Your Honor, he’s looking at potential 24 to 70 years in prison. He's 72 years old, that’s a death penalty. so this is absolutely important and necessary, constitutionally, that this client has his right to effective assistance of counsel to his right to confrontation, to his right to present his defenses. Under section (2) of the same statute, under 905.27, When a court orders the disclosure Of such testimony pursuant to the subsection for use in criminal case, it may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney of the court in which the criminal case is pending by the prosecuting attorney to his assistants or legal associates, employees to the defendant and defendant’s attorney by the latter And when it’s disclosed, it says it’s at section (4), If you're convicted of violating this section, you're guilty Of a misdemeanor of a first-degree, punishable by -- in section 775.083, and by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both And a violation of this section constitutes criminal contempt of court. So we're trying to prevent any criminal contempt of court for any of these witnesses, whether they’re state witnesses or Defense witnesses, who have to come in to testify to the actions in relation to the grand juries here, of criminal contempt. Under 905.2 -- under 905.17, it also states, No person Jonnifer L, Musgrove Digital Court Reporter Third Judicial circuit (Gee)asaci39310 W 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 7 shall be present while the grand jurors deliberate or vote, except the interpreter who may be present at the swearing and they’re to refrain from personal interjection and to uphold the secrecy. These allegations of some of the irreconcilable differences deal with the personal interjection of the state Attorney and his interference with the grand jury’s ability to discuss, deliberate, and vote on| what was believed to be numerous potential crimes, or/even civil wrongs, by persons within the jurisdiction of the Court. Because the grand jury can also look into civil wrongs and\errors And without disclosing what they are, but everybody obviously knows what the Second Bill is about, you know, the issues need to be addressed and dealt with Under 905.18, When required, the court shall advise the grand jury about its legal duties. In its original charge or thereafter the court shall not restrict an investigation of any matter into which the grand jury is by law entitled to inquire. In this case we have an issue with, did the court advise? who advised, who didn’t advise? I won’t repeat again, Your Honor, as far as the pattern, but you already know what I’ve said about Munkittrick and Parker, and then it deals with the state Attorney. Did anybody restrict any investigation in any matter? How did they did they restrict Jennifer b. Musgrove pigital Court Reporter (046/458-1333,10 i 2 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 2 24 25 33 it? Those are all issues that need to be dealt with Then you have 905.20, The grand juror, who knows or has reason to believe, that an indictable offense triable within the county has been committed, shall report the information to the grand jury and may be sworn as a witness in an investigation. Well, at the meeting that did take place on August 1°, this issues [sic] of when the statutory grand jury was presenting, and presenting evidence as a witness in this investigation, that there was irreconcilable differences between the grand jury foreman and the State Attorney. and those are issues that need to be delved into. We also have 905.25, A grand juror’s not permitted to stay to testify. We have 905.28) a publication of report or presentment or motion to repress. And this again deals with when there's a presentment of a grand jury and it’s published, the person that’s being presented against should be normally given 15 days to file with the circuit court, a motion to repress or expunge the report or that portion which is improper or unlawful. So we need to get into issues, Your Honor, factual issues on this, as far as, was there presentment or was there not a presentment? And was anybody given a 15-day notice or not? And what would they have done if they were given a Jennifer L. Musgrove Third Judiciat circuit (386/458-139910 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 2 24 25 39) notice? And does that make it a civil matter, a criminal matter? So there’s issues here to the defense and the actions and everything else in relation to this matter, Your Honor. And then the oath of the grand juror, 905.10, it clearly states, it says, You will not disclose the nature or substance of deliberations, the nature or substance of testimony or other evidence, the vote, or the statements of the State Attorney. And this is the only place where I found, the statements of the State attorney having any protection. And this is the one that, I believe, Siegmeister was referring to when he said the oath. And this oath of a grand juror, not the oath of the State Attorney So -- but because he could err in the side of caution read this oath of a)grand juror and applied it to himself, he wanted»me to seek protection so he can testify So, Your Honor, based on the statute, the handbook, the instructions, the case law provided, the good cause set forth, as well as I have other supplemental authority, which deal with the immunity issue; and we're, like I said, as far as the absolute immunity, we'll be filing a separate motion But Harlow versus Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, does deal with the absolute immunity, as well as California versus Dodson, which is 2012 WL 1994467. And I'11 provide these to Your Honor. Dennis versus State, which 51 So.3d 456, a Jennifer 1. Musgrove Digital Court Reporter Third Judicial ciroult (Gesjasenn39310 ony 12 @ » 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e@ 24 25 40 Supreme Court from December 10‘ -- December 16", 2010. ‘Then you have Skidroe (phonetic) versus State -- THE COURT: Let me be clear on this, Ms. Garcia, because you're confusing me a little bit now. I thought, and I’m looking at your prayer for relief, we -- you have, second, start of your paragraph, to grant both transactional and use immunity. It was my understanding that at this point in time, you were withdrawing that request. Am I incorrect? MS. GARCIA: Yes, I’m going to be filing -- what I’m requesting is actually, it’s really statutory immunity from contempt of court) for any of the witnesses that testify for purposes of the pretrial depositions. THE COURT: Are you -- MS. GARCIA: And THE COURT: withdrawing that or are you seeking that? MS. GARCIA: I’m withdrawing that, as far as you having to make a ruling for their absolute immunity through the trial. All I’m requesting right now is the statutory immunity under the secrecy clause, under 905.27. THE COURT: Okay. But all the cases you're referring to now, I think you're dealing with immunity questions transactional and use immunity as you’ve gotten in the second prayer for relief, right? MS. GARCI Hold on, Your Honor, let me check my prayer. Digital coure Reporter Paiva Judicial circuit10 1 12 1B 14, 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 (Pause in the proceedings.) MS. GARCIA: I think the second prayer for relief is asking to relieve them from the secrecy provision under 905, and to compel their attendance to comply with the subpoenaed for production of documents, which is the first part. The other part was to allow the written record, or names of jurors, and to give immunity to any other person that could testify in relations to the grand jury under the under 905. And then, instead of transactional and use immunity right now, we/re seeking -- we're seeking an order to allow them to testafy, so nobody will be subject to contempt at this point. Depending on what they said, I would then seek transactional and use immunity, and statutory immunity, the defense of immunity, in our motions to dismiss Ipthink the third -- the third portion just, I think, extends on the fact, more of the fact of which I was discussing as far as the whole classification of sovereign citizen and common law, that’s more of a factual request. Your Honor, that’s really all I have right now THE COURT: Mr. Meggs? MR. MEGGS: Okay. Your Honor, yes, sir, 1 appreciate the opportunity to respond. First off, the State would request that the Court deny this motion in its entirety. And briefly, I’d like to just Jennifer &. Musgrove pigital Court Reporter Taird Judicial circuit (dae)450-2333 410 1 12 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25, a2 make a couple of arguments and thoughts. The defendant is charged with 14 counts, these 14 counts and the issue before this -- the Court is those 14 counts Those 14 counts have absolutely no relevancy whatsoever with the statutory grand jury, or the statements of the state Attorney to the statutory grand jury, or anything appertaining to the statutory grand jury; except one exception, which 1/1] get to in just a very quick moment. Counts III all the way through XIIII, have the defendant charged with filing simulated legal process. and the simulated legal process, as it pertains to different individuals, are those two True Bills that were filed with the Court that basically are bogus which makes them simulated Process. So anything pertaining to the statutory grand jury is totally irrelevant to the charges to which the defendant is charged with. The only thing that is relevant as it pertains to the statutory grand jury deals with Counts I and II, primarily, which are the instructions, and it also deals with -- going to intent are the instructions that the statutory grand jury was given. And the only reason that the State would argue those are relevant are to show, one, that the defendant was, in fact given instructions and told what the duties and responsibilities of a grand juror happen to be. So he cannot Venniter b, Musgrove pigital court Reporter Third Judicial crcuie (336) 458-239910 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 a claim that he did not have intent, he cannot claim that he did not have knowledge about the responsibility of the grand jury, and the responsibility of the actions that he, in fact, took. I would also ask the Court to take judicial notice that there is no such animal in Florida law as a common law grand jury. ‘There is no such animal as the people’s grand jury There is only one legally recognized grand jury in Florida and that is the one generated/and created by Chapter 940 -- 905, excuse me. So I/d/ask the Court to take judicial notice that there is no common law or people’s grand jury As to the Counts I and II which have to do with the defendant impersonating @ public officer or an employee, that has to do with Counts I and II. and the proof of that issue deals with the defendant in that case was, in fact, the foreman of the statutory grand jury, but he went to the clerk as the foreman of the statutory grand jury to get a courtroom to assemble this other group that, in fact, returned these simulated legal processes. so in because, I think, the testimony would probably be very clear, he would not got a courtroom to have an assembly of people if he wanted call them the garden club, or the common law grand jury, or the people’s grand jury, he would not have gotten that courtroom had he not impersonated the foremen of the statutory grand jury asking for the room Digital Coure Reporter Third Judicial carcuse (986) 450-1333,10 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 4 And I -- there’s one other thing that is also, I think relevant to Counts I and II of impersonating an officer, when he returned the bogus simulated legal process to the clerk he did that as the statutory grand jury foreman. He was recognized by the employees in the clerk’s office when he came in as the statutory ‘grand jury foreman to file this bogus simulated legal process. The -- and the only reason I think this motion should -- the reason that I think the motion should be denied in its entirety, the instructions to the grand jury are not secret, they’re published for the whole world to know. And they were, in fact, not only published, they are, in fact, read to the defendant in this case to show he had the knowledge. so it’s not -- that’s not a secret thing, so anybody can get the handbook and read that, whether they're on a grand jury or not. As to the immunity, to object to -- to immunize the statutory grand jury, the -- to the cause of secrecy, there is no reason to grant that. One, because no testimony was heard by this grand jury at all to keep secret. No activity no action was taken by the grand jury to be kept secret. Now -- and also in her motion that she wants to immunize the common law grand jury, well, that’s not relevant because that is nothing more than a group of people who met in the courthouse under the subterfuge that leads us to Counts I and Jennifer L. misgrove pigital Court Reporter Tard Judieiar circuit (346) 458-1393,10 ul 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 2 24 25 45 II because the common law grand jury is a nonexistent unit. It is - it does not have any authority or power, it’s just a group of people that got in the courtroom. And the Chapter 843.10 deals with that, there’s nothing in that statute prohibits people from assembling together. Well, except it was done by deception by him impersonating the statutory grand jury, pretending that he was then doing something with the statutory grand jury. Factually the statutory grand jury never heard a case they never recorded any testimony, they never had any other sessions other than this assembly session that we had, took no testimony during the term of their six months of being the grand jury. Very briefly, one of the arguments made somewhere in her 65-page motion has to do with the good faith instruction There are cases out there, Judge, and I have just a limited amount of time, because I just got this motion on Monday to research the issue. But I would call attention to the Court and I think these are mostly federal cases and they primarily deal with jury instructions about a good faith defense One of them is United states versus Svoboda, S-V-0-B-o- D-A, and it involves a jury instruction where the defendant wanted a good faith -- an instruction on a good faith defense. I just wanted to read something; this defendant, in that particular case, apparently, factually did not like the vennster b. Musgrove pigital Court Reporter (386) 458-1333,10 1 2 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 46 tax statute so -- THE COURT: Give me a cite on this case you're reading prior MR. MEGGS: Okay. The case I’m reading from is 633 F.3d 479, it’s a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case. And basically in that case, it just reads something that they wrote, finally, it is therefore held that in a case like this a defendant’s views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness and need not be heard by the jury. andif they are, an instruction to disregard them would be improper. We therefore reject Svoboda's argument that either permits a good faith belief defense and we approve the district court’s refusal to give Svoboda's proposed jury instructions. So that’s one case as it pertains to -- and there are others, and I think there are probably tons of them, but another one that I would cite to the Court comes out of the Tenth Circuit. It's cited 746 F.3d 987, out of the Tenth. it’s United states v. John Williams. And in that particular case, the Court gave some pretty good instructions. The defendant did not challenge the accuracy of the instructions, but argued that the Court should include good faith instructions. On appeal we argued this error prevented the jury from exonerating him if it found he honestly believed that he had Jennifer b, Musgrove pigieal coure Reporter Third Judicial circuit (Gee) s5e-139310 il 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 47 not filed a false lien. And this does involve a sovereign citizen, I believe. The Court went on to say, However, a defendant can be guilty even if he honestly believed that he filed a proper lien, so long as the belief was not a reasonable one, and so he'd be found guilty The statute prohibits not only the filing of a false lien, knowing that the lien was false, but also filing a false lien having reason to know that it was false. In other words, the jury may convict the defendant if a reasonable Person, who possessed the information, possessed by the defendant, would have the requisite knowledge. And, of course, the»-- and they found that he was not entitled to a good faith instruction on that. I won't argue the stand-your-ground, that was weighted in there somewhere and that is pretty bizarre. But another case involving and this is a very recent case decided November 2015, it’s not officially published yet, but it comes out of the Fourth District of California, and it’s The People versus Montgomery, filed November the 10", and let's see what -- and I just got these cases, Judge, pulled yesterday. The Courts have consistently rejected sovereign citizen type arguments as having no legal basis. accordingly, any belief held by Montgomery, the defendant, and erkins, in their individual sovereignty permitted their actions are Jennifer 5. Musgrove Digital Court Reporter Third Judicial Carcuie (386) 450-239310 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 48 unwarranted and in bad faith. Regarding the exclusion of sovereign citizens’ evidence the Court, in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will be -- will necessitate undue consumption of time, creates a special danger of undue prejudice of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury Encompassed within the discretion is the discretion to exclude evidence of inapplicable law. A mistake of law is not an applicable defense in this case. The sovereign citizen evidence was irrelevant and/the Court did not err in excluding ity And that’s one of the most recent cases that has come out, and it is not yet published except in Westlaw, the Westlaw cite is 215 WL 6941363. So as.to a good faith instruction, which is argued in her motion, this has -- and wanting to immunize the grand jury, I think one of the things that’s important is, these instructions, the jury instructions, pertain to the grand jury itself, not to necessarily the individual grand jurors the grand juror as, and in this case, as it pertains to Terry Trussell. He was merely a member of the grand jury who was appointed to preside over their deliberations when they were in their private sessions. He has no more authority than anyone else on the grand jury, all of the instructions apply Jennifer L, Musgrove Digital court Reporter ‘Third Judicial Circuit (06)456-233910 W 2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 2 24 25 49 directly to him, and he is not the grand jury. and in this particular case there has never been, as I understand it, a conflict with the grand jury, the Court, or the State Attorney. There’s only been a conflict with a member of the grand jury who also happened to be the foreman So that brings us back to the issue that is before this court, which is the charges of filing simiilated legal process and of impersonating a public officer that had an impact with the Indictments that were issued in these True Bills on multiple people. So I'd ask the Court to deny the defendant’s motion in its entirety. And that a determination be made that the statutory grand jury's role in this case is not relevant to the charges against the defendant because he is simply charged with violating - of filing a document that qualified as simulated legal process. Thank you THE COURT: Ms. Garcia? MS. GARCIA: (No audible response.) THE COURT: Hello? MS. GARCIA: Yes, Your Honor? THE COURT: Did you have something further you wished to say? MS. GARCIA: I mean, I’d have to spend three hours responding to that. You know, we went from simulated legal process in the beginning, toward the end as he was gaining Third Judicial Circuit (386)45801333,10 1 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 50 ground is the Indictment again, although every witness said it wasn’t. But, no, it’s all relevant, Your Honor, and has many defenses. And there is, briefly, he’s citing cases that are not factually similar. We have many cases on this as relating directly to grand jury. The grand jury instructions do apply to the individual grand jurors, also, not the grand jury as a whole. The grand jury did hear a case when the grand jury foreman brought it before them, he actually testified in the room. And there’s isstles as to the irreconcilable differences that’s between the grand jury and the state Attorney, and he is the foreman of the grand jury and there were irreconcilable differences. There was the testimony at the time. He's’ coming through now and he’s basically stating now that. his whole case is based on Dana thinking that he was representing himself as the statutory grand jury versus the common law grand jury, this whole organization that day. so it’s going to be very relevant what happened with my client as a grand jury -- statutory grand jury foreman and as a common law grand jury foreman. Because now he’s saying, Oh, the common law grand jury is not relevant, but when he came here, he was acting like he was the statutory grand jury, but he really was the common venniter b, Musgrove Digital couse Report10 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 5 law's grand jury. So I definitely have the right to delve into who came up with the fact that he was saying he was the statutory grand jury foreman, what was the division between the two, what the people believe when and where. He said that he deceptively pretended to be the statutory grand jury foreman, so I have a right to delve into anything in relation to the statutory grafd jury foreman, and what led that belief, and from wheré did it start. and it started at its inception when Siegmeister testified at his deposition that prior to him even becoming the statutory grand jury foreman, they had intent(to get rid of him, and he wouldn't even have been on it had he had a choice. The Tea Party, when he’s gone to Tea Party meetings and @itferent other meetings. So the history in and of itself is very relevant as tothe motive. He is saying the whole sovereign citizen issue is not relevant, that’s very relevant Your Honor, that goes to the political basis to prosecute. It’s goes to the facts of the case. It goes to the intent of all the parties. It goes to the reaction of all the parties It doesn’t create any undue prejudice, in fact, or confusion, because he even admitted, he’s saying there's a significant difference between a statutory grand jury and common law grand jury foreman. But they‘re categorizing and prosecuting my client under the sovereign citizen law, which I provided the emails that they talk about it. Digital Court Reporter (a6) 458-133910 a 12 13 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 2 24 25 52, The State Attorney's own secretary’s emails classified him as a sovereign citizen. And they determined to categorize him in a category and treat him as such instead of following the laws and asking the statutory grand jury foreman, Why do you and the State Attorney have an issue? And instead of the judge approaching and trying to solve the issue, we have judges, maybe and maybe not approaching, identifying (indiscernible) according to the law. So all of this is very relevant, Your Honor, to numerous defenses, besides mistake of law and good faith. I can understand and he’s going to have his own opinions about what my defenses are, but this is a case of first impression and there are no jury instructions. And I have a right to present to you whatever defenses I think are veasonable, and thén you have a right, obviously, as the Court to determine what you believe is reasonable or not. That‘s not to be determined here. And for you to take a judicial notice right now of common law grand juries not existing, I, you know, you're going to do what you want with that, Your Honor So all I can say is we have legitimate defenses out there. We have many issues that relate directly to the statutory grand jury, including the testimony and what happened in that room and irreconcilable differences. So to try to just take away the total sovereign citizen out of this bigieal Court Reporer maird Judicial carcuie (986) 456-133310 u 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 case, when that’s the whole basis of the prosecution of the State, would completely deprive my client of all of his constitutional rights, right to effective assistance of counsel, right to defense. This - it would be it would be utterly ridiculous to try this case without us being able to present the truth of what happened here and why. So that’s it, Your Honor THE COURT: All right. In making my ruling I’m going to refer to the prayer for relief, which is page 62, 63 of the motion. That’s the most organized place I could find to figure out what thé Defense is asking me to do. Let me make a couple of generalized comments. The Defense throws the term immunity around in a very Gonfusing and legally inconsistent manner. We’ve mixed together sovereign immunity which relates to liability in civil cases transactional and use immunity which relates to criminal prosecutions, and then talked about grand jury immunity, and I don’t think there is any such animal. But there is grand jury secrecy, which is a whole different concept from immunity. But I think we’ve -- listening to Defense argument, it really confuses those issues. I think they have to be kept separate because they’re totally different issues. As to the grand jury secrecy, many of the issues mentioned by the Defense today have nothing to do with the Jennifer b. Musgrove pigieal Court Reporter lied Judicial circuit (346) 458-1333,10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 2 24 25 34 grand jury secrecy. TI can’t go through each instance here today and identify which is which, but, you know, by and large, the witnesses being deposed or the lawyers themselves they understand where that line is drawn I agree with what the State has indicated, the instructions given to the grand jury are not covered by grand jury secrecy provisions. Those are the légal instructions to be given to the grand jury to the extent they’re getting confusion on that those legalinstructions are not covered by the grand jury. So taking the prayer for relief and it starts out, First, and it essentially, this paragraph asks the Court to relieve a whole large number of people, I can’t quite figure Out how many it would be, it would be an extensive number of people from the statutory grand jury secrecy provision Indecline to do that and deny that request with one exception, to the extent there’s any confusion as to whether the actual instructions given to the statutory grand jury in the Spring of 2014, are secret or not, I will allow discovery on that issue. I don’t think they’re covered by grand jury secrecy. But if there’s any confusion on that, the actual instructions given to the grand jury, 1 relieve anyone that was involved in that process from discussing the instructions given to the grand jury in the Spring of 2014. Other than that, I decline to release anyone from the Jenniter £. miogrove bigital Court Reporter Cereus10 1 2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 55 grand jury secrecy provisions. And when I say, grand jury I'm only talking about the statutory grand jury, there is no other entity. I will consider at trial, upon a showing of relevance, what other grand jury secrecy should be released There may well be issues at trial that -- where we will have to release particular people from the grand jury secrecy, but I’m not going to give a blanket release here to, well, there are nine paragraphs listed, but many of them involve multiple people. I just can’t control that release and I’m not going to allow that.) So for discovery purposes I deny the motion; I will consider it at trial upon a showing of relevance. I deny the fotion at this point without prejudice to raise again at trial. As to paragraph two, it starts out, Second, on page 63 I can’t quite figure out from Ms. Garcia whether she has withdrawn that or not withdrawing that, I didn’t get a clear answer to that question. TI think she intended to withdraw it, but that was not clear in my attempt to clarify that. I deny the request to grant transactional and use immunity to the persons listed. I, at this point, would determine the Court has no authority to do so. I would cite the parties to Fountaine, F-O-U-N-T-A-I-N- State, 460 So.2d 553, a Second DCA case 1984 and Johns State of Florida, 54 So.3d 589, Florida Fourth DCA 2011. Now the Defense has indicated they wish to make further Jennifer 1. Musgrove pigital Court Reporter (96) 450-239310 int 12 B 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 56 argument on that point, my ruling will be without prejudice to make further, more detailed, argument on that topic, but that is my current ruling. As to the paragraph starting with, Third, which I would say the third paragraph requesting relief relating to Mr. Trussell’s understanding. This Court’s ruling has nothing, no bearing on Mr. Trussell’s understanding. That's not a grand -- a discovery issue. I’m not crystal clear of what I’m being asked to determine here. The conttion law grand jury movement, the citizens’ grand jury movement, the so-called sovereign citizens’ movement really don’t have anything to do with grand jury secrecy or the Court's ruling on grand jury Secrecy. Frankly, I can’t figure out what the Defense is asking me to order there, since I can’t figure it out, I deny the request. Fourth, discovery must be permitted as to Mr. Trussell’s motivation and reasoning behind his actions. Obviously, the Court has no control over Mr. Trussell’s motivation or reasoning, I can’t think of any Court action I would take that would have any bearing on that. Certainly, the Defense has every right to explore their client’s motivations, so there’s nothing really to rule on. The later part of it says something to the effect of how others involved perceived the role and place of Mr. Trussell. Jennifer &. Musgrove pigital Court Reporter (306) 450-133310 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 57 Again, other than as it relates to grand jury secrecy, that's not anything the Court has any reason to rule on or consider. Tf that request, and it’s certainly not clear what that request means, if that request is to relieve people from grand jury secrecy so that they can talk about what happened in the grand jury, I deny that request as indicated in paragraph one. Beyond that, I’m not crystal clear what relief is requested. So since I can’t figure out what's being requested, I will deny the relief So essentially, I’ve denied) the relief, except to as to the instructions given to the statutory grand jury, Spring of 2014. My ruling’s without prejudice to raise again at trial Frankly, I don’t see how this is ever going to become an issue and until we hear testimony from Mr. Trussell that makes it relevant, then I would make a ruling at that point in time. Let me comment on one other issue that the suggestion was that discovery was needed for motions to dismiss, to explore Mr. Trussell’s specific intent. and there are legions of cases that say specifically, intent cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss. So I just can’t imagine how that ieads to anything that would be of relevance in a motion to dismiss. It certainly might be relevant at trial, but not in a motion to dismiss. And as to other discovery to develop disputed facts, I Jennifer 1. misgrove pigival Court Reporter Third Judicial circule (386) 656-1333,10 Ww 12 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 think it's pretty well accepted law, and it’s what the rule says, disputed facts are not a basis for motion to dismiss either. So I don’t see how discovery relates to a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss is designed to resolve legal issues involving undisputed facts. And to the extent we have legal issues involving undisputed facts, the Court will be glad to attempt to resolve those issues. But T can’t imagine how the discovery request has anything to do with a motion to dismiss. And that willjbe my ruling. Do we have any other matters pending? MR. MEGGS: Not from the State. THE COURT: Any other matters pending, Ms. Garcia? MS. GARCIA: No, just a brief clarification. so -- THE COURT: Generally, clarification means someone wants to reargue, I’m not -- MS. GARCIA: No. THE COURT: going to reargue -- MS. GARCIA: No. THE COURT: this. MS. GARCIA: I’m not trying to reargue it. I'm just trying to understand something for the witnesses, so I can make sure that they're - THE COURT: Okay. MS. GARCIA: I want to just understand to make sure, so Sennifer b. Musgrove Digital Coure Reporter mird Judicial cireust (346) 458-133310 WL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 59 I'm clear with the witnesses. Your position is that all these actions that took place out of the jury room are not under the secrecy? THE COURT: I don’t think I said that. MS. GARCIA: So they can testify to anything that happened, as long as it’s not the secrecy -- THE COURT: I think I said I wasn’t going to attempt to draw that line here today. The only specific area that 1 do say is, I will make an exception to the extent it’s necessary as to the instructions given to the statutory grand jury in Spring 2014. Beyond that, I leave it to the parties to present further to me. All right. ¥’all Have a good day. MR. MEGGS: Thank you, Judge. (The proceedings were concluded at 11:29 a.m.) Digital Court Reporter10 ul 12 13 “4 13 16 17 18 19 20 2) 22 23 24 25 [ 60 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCURACY STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLUMBIA ) I, Jennifer L. Musgrove, Digital Court Reporter, Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, do hereby certify that: A MOTION HEARING was held in re: The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Dixie County, Florida, Case No. 2014-201-CP, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, versus TERRY TRUSSELL, Defendant, before the Honorable James C. Hankinson Circuit Judge, on April 15, 2016. ‘That I was authorized to and did transcribe the digitally recorded proceedings had during said MOTION HEARING and that the foregoing pages, numbered 1 through 59, constitute a true and correct transcription as permitted by the quality of said digital recording. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand on this 17th day of May, 2016. # ange gS Digital Court Reporter Third Judicial Circuit of Florida (386) 758-1333 Jennifer L, Musgrove Third Judicial circuit (Geel asec1393