10 ul 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 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. X ee 8 TERRY TRUSSELL, 22,7 : 23 Defendant. Seo: / s = 23s mn Ke23 5 sees So a PROCEEDING: MOTION HEARING (TELEPHONIC) > BEFORE: The Honorable James ¢. Hankinson Circuit, Judge DATE: January 27, 2016 TIME: 1i:15%a.m. PLACE: Dixie County Courthouse Cross City, Florida ‘TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES: WILLIAM N, MEGGS, ESQUIRE Assistant State Attorney 301 South Monyoe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Attorney for the State INGER M. GARCIA, ESQUIRE Post Office Box 11933 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 Attorney for the Defendant ORIGINAL pigieal Court Reporter (06) 458-133510 in 2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 2s PROCEEDINGS (The following proceedings were held in open court, with the defendant and his attorney appearing telephonically, to-wit:) THE COURT: This is Judge Hankinson, if I could kind of get a roll call of who T have on the line. THE CLERK: Christie Johnson, deputy clerk with the clerk's office in Dixie. THE COURT: Okay. MS. GARCIA: Yes, Inger Garcia on the line, and I have Terry Trussell here with me. THE COURT: Okay. And we have some kind of court reporting service set up? THE CLERK: I do have the system on. THE COURT: All right, so we/re digitally recording this, Ms. Johnson? THE CLERK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. Will they let us know if there’s some problem? ‘THE They will. THE COURT: Okay. All right. And Mr. Meggs is present here. We're here on the Defense renewed motion for a continuance. I’ve reviewed the motion, Ms. Garcia. what vennifer b. Musgrove vigital Coure Reporter Third Judicial cireuse10 1 12 13 14 15 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be most helpful to me is, basically, Ms. Garcia, if you would outline what has been done and then outline what you see needs to be done. I don’t need a whole lot of discussion over blameshifting, or whatever. That’s not very productive Basically what I want to know is what you have done what you think needs to be done to give your client effective representation. So if you would do that please, Ms. Garcia MS. GARCIA: Yes, Your Honor.| 1/11 just do an outline If you want more detail, just) request it. As to defendant's notice of filing depositions of another 21 transéripts, T/ve taken, T think, 24 depositions so far, Your Honor. And throughout these depositions, I've discovered other witnesses I need to depose and new evidence that I need to add to my witness list, my exhibit list, and new witnesses I need to add to my witness list. I’m not sure you want who I deposed, but it’s in the notice of filing that I just filed. I’ve taken most of them -- THE COURT: Well, what I’m trying to get a handle on truthfully is, you know, where does this go? I mean, I’ve seen a lot of paper flying around. It strikes me as it’s not a case where there’s a whole bunch of controversy as to what factually happened. It’s more a matter of what were the intentions of that and what, you know, what was the result of that. Digital coure Reporter Third Judicial cireuse (396)456-233310 iW 12 B 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But anyway, maybe I’m incorrect about that, but I’m just trying to get a handle on what it is exactly you're trying to accomplish. MS. GARCIA: Well, I guess I’m trying to accomplish effective counsel and a fair trial for my client, Your Honor. THE Well, that's Ms. But basically what I want to accomplish THE COURT: -- just what lawyers, lawyer oath -- MS. GARCIA: -- specifically -- THE COURT: What kind of defense in general are you trying to establish? “That’s what I’m trying to figure out. MS. GARCIA: Okay. Well, specifically, I guess, Your Honor, moving forward, I need to take certain depositions in relation to the clerk, the documents, the filing, the removal, the lack of production of the documents, how they were held. In relation to that, there’s motions that need to be filed to suppress or dismiss, on whether it’s correlation, whether it’s tampering, whether it’s lost evidence. so it’s -- the clerk has a lot of issues. There’s a lot of factual issues also, Your Honor ‘The defenses to this case, given the fact that 843.0855 has no jury instructions and no defenses prepared, and we/re working on those different jury instructions back and forth, I’m developing numerous defenses and numerous instructions, Jennifer b. Musgrove pigital coure Reporcer Third Judicial circuit ernie ‘ua _}10 rt 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 and we're going to need to go through those and have a hearing on those to determine which defenses you’re allowing. There's a clear defense in (5) (b), Your Honor. That’s assembly, right to assemble, right to petition your government for redress, First Amendment. There’s other defenses that I’ve been developing through the facts. Other than that, you know, that right there is a major issue, Your Honor. Given the fact\that my client is 70 years old, he’s looking at from 24 to 70 years in prison, and there's no standard jury defenses to control or govern the way this trial’s going to proceed and what defenses you're going to allow. ‘That’s one major issue, Your Honor, when it comes to this case. If defenses are allowed, how are they going to be allowed THE COURT: Give me an example of what you're talking about; I MS. GARCI Well, we have to prepare jury instructions for freedom of speech and right to redress, whether or not the common law's gathered correctly, whether or not the common law has a right to prepare certain documents. The factual issues between Siegmeister, Dana, my client, and the sheriff of what happened, why it happened, what were the motives. There's intent elements in the statute Your Honor, and - THE COURT: Certainly. Jennifer L. Musgrove vigital Court Reporcer (386) 458-133310 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 MS. GARCIA: -- there’s a lot of issues in relation to this, you know, the whole sovereign citizen and common law grand jury, and what happened in the grand jury with Siegmeister, Weed, my client, the judges, in relation to why this case was filed, the intent for the case being filed, whether there's selective discrimination against my client. I mean, there's many issues, Your Honor, that I have been researching and gathering information. And what I’m doing right now is T have about 14 pretrial motions in draft and I’m excerpting, I/m taking from the transcripts, the relevant testimony to give you in a very convenient and easy format so we can handle the hearings. It is -- it’s not a simple case as it appears by documents, Judge. There are intent issues; there are freedom of expression issues; there's potential whistle-blowing there's potential fraud; there’s potential evidence tampering. ‘So I’m reviewing everything and preparing it. And, right now, I just finished the first depositions, and I have to take more depositions in Tallahassee. I have a 905 privilege motion I'm going to be filing later today because Siegmeister, during his deposition, said basically to protect himself as a prosecutor, although he’s willing to speak and he admits it’s important, and T and my client have the right to this information, he has obtained a 905 privilege when it came to the conversation with the grand Jennifer L, Musgrove Digital court Reporter (366)450-133310 1 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 2: 24 25 jury. And I have a motion in relation to that. And then I need to develop those theories, Your Honor, and the fact and the bases of why my client was chosen to be prosecuted I mean, that's just some of the issues. There’s many more, but I'm trying to crystalize them and organize them and present them in organized single issue format in motions Judge, so we can make a proper pretrial determination and then proper trial administrative decisions, including the jury instructions that don’t exist. THE COURT: And how long do you think it is going to take you to complete these activities? MS. GARCIA: Well, Your Honor, to be honest with you, if I'm going to do it and not seek another continuance, four months would give us enough time to get everything properly done. I don’t waft. to re-continue it. I’d like to have a date, and I would like to know when it’s going to happen, so we can get all of our motions set, get all of our hearings set, and do it in a properly, orderly fashion, where we can all appear at the evidentiary hearings in Dixie County Because we're going to need the evidentiary hearings and the hearing on these jury instructions, on the motions to suppress, on the motions to dismiss, and I just want a fair trial, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Anything else? MS. GARCT: No, Your Honor, I think my motion pretty vennifer L. Musgrove Digital Court Reporter mhird Judicial circuit (286) 458-1333,10 W 12 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 24 25 much speaks for itself. It lays 17 pages of detail out, and I know you said you've read it, so I don’t want to reiterate it. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Meggs? MR. MEGGS: Judge, I don’t know how long we have for this hearing, but I have, I am very much opposed to a continuance in this case. In the motion, it’s alleged that she has not been given time for depositions, and I have a chronology of what has happened in the case. And I will tell the Court, and I will tell the defense counsel, T think the State intends to call six witnesses. All six of those witnesses, except one, has been deposed. The othe will be. ‘The other one that has not been is Judge Parker, and we plan to depose him on Thursday morning of this week. Back in -- Ms. Garcia filed her notice of appearance in July of 2015. Two months later she asked for seven days for depositions in September, October, and November. Pursuant to the rules of discovery, we gave her 21 days in those three months for depositions. None of those depositions were ever used. In October, she asked for some more dates in December and January. We gave her -- the next day we gave her nine days, one of them was an entire week. There was some times that were available and some that were not. Then -- and one vennifer b. Musgrove Digital Coure Reporter (006/456-229910 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 of the reasons we only gave her nine in October for November and December, is I had a trial scheduled. It got continued Immediately, November the 30", we notified her that that entire week was available in December, so that was an additional five days. Then in December, we tried to confirm the date, since we'd given her a date three months before, and January the at", T could no longer use that date because we had scheduled the grand jury since she'd never scheduled anything, so in December she wants to go to January the 6". We've actually given her a total of 50 days since she had asked for dates in September for depositions. She’s used five.| To my records, she’s taken 12 depositions so far, she says 20, but I say 12. And her motion is just full of things that are basically incorrect and just not well founded in any kind of law that I've ever been a part of, you know, like in paragraph six. And I know you did say you didn’t want to go back and forth, but there’s things that are not true in the motion. They need to be dealt with. She needs additional time to do these depositions and has newly submitted information. Well, I did amend discovery. I moved some witnesses from being Class A witnesses to Class C witness because I’m not going to call them at trial. That should not impede her presentation because she’s not going to learn anything from them anyway pigital court Reporter Thisd Judiolal ciecuie (Gee) 450-19339 10 2 1B 14 15 16 "7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 10 And says she has no time for depositions. Well, I think she says that basically in paragraph six of her motion, and she’s had 50 days since September for depositions In paragraph eight, she talks about the jury instructions. We have sent her some prepared jury instructions, and that’s the Court's responsibility, but we've prepared some jury instructions, sliggested ones. I've received nothing from her, been doing this for some period of time now. That’s not a basis) for a continue. We have a jury instruction conference every trial I’ve ever been in, in the last 39 years, we have a jury instructiony. And the Court ds well capable of ruling on whether or not a requested jury instruction would be given or not given. That‘s up to the Court‘s prerogative In paragraph nine, the -- she makes an allegation that we have neglected to respond to her amended discovery request. And I have that in front of me, and, Your Honor, T just have to say to you that it’s 11 pages. The rules of discovery have 11 categories that the State is to respond to, and I went through and kind of looked at these supplemental demands for discovery, and she's asking for that as a basis to continue because I have ignored her discovery request. And not to just beat a dead horse in this, but if you go over to the 56, and I could go through a bunch of others she's asking for things in number 22 through 36 that don’t (396) 458-1393,10 1 12 1B 14 15 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 1 even exist. So I’m not going to provide something that doesn't exist. But in her paragraphs 56, she’s demanding in the supplemental demand for discovery that the State provide her proof that Terry Trussell violated the statute he’s charged under. Well, that’s about the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard in my -- that’s what the trial’s about. That's why we will call witnesses and have a trial. That is not a legitimate demand for discovery. and that goes on through paragraph 56 all the way through paragraph 96. And it is things like, proof that Terry Trussell took any action under cover of law against persons or property, proof that Terry Trusséll simulated legal process. When you look at these -- that’s what this trial is about. That’s why we scheduled it for trial. That is not a legitimate discovery request, but it is a basis for her asking for a continuance. The entire supplemental demand for discovery is a sham and, in my opinion, unheard of in criminal law. I have been a prosecutor for nearly 39 years and never seen such a document as this supplemental demand for discovery In paragraph 11, the two court orders pertaining to duces tecum subpoenas have caused delay and restarts. That is a ridiculous allegation that she’s made there. The Court did enter an order saying that she could not take duces tecum subpoenas without a subpoena, and the very next day rescinded vennifer b. Musgrove Digital Coure Reporter (386)458-229910 1 R 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 2 that order because of the rule change that was in. So she alleges in paragraph eleven that these two orders have caused delays and restarts. We’re talking about one day. One day. And it doesn’t cause a restart. In paragraph 12, you know, she the grand jury -- and I did instruct assistant state attorney, John Weed, and I did instruct Jeffrey Siegmeister, not to answer questions about communications that happened inside the statutory grand jury proceeding. If the proceedings are secret for the grand jurors, they're certainly secret for the State Attorney and for the assistant, state attorney that was dealing with the grandad jury: And so, in order for them not to be held to answer for a crime that they may have committed by revealing what happened in the presence of the statutory grand jury, I instructed them not to answer that question. But none of those questions, and as the Court well knows, it’s hard to object in a deposition because depositions are for the purpose of learning what the witness knows and anything that may lead to relevant information. Well, I have not objected, but T have been in depositions for hours on end with the same witness asking of with them being asked questions that would never be able to be used at trial. They have absolutely no relevance and I’1l give an example of that. Jennifer ta Musgrove pigieal Gove Reporter hie gudiciat clrcnse (dneraseciss al14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 13 Witnesses were questioned about Terry Trussell’s arrest for not appearing. That will never be brought up in a trial That is not relevant to the issues in this case. But I can’t object. I don't object in depositions to going off down that useless rabbit trail that has no involvement with this case no relevance to the charge at all. And the bulk of her motion to continue is with that, in verse -- in paragraph 14 there's a/motion to continue, the she says she has a right to confront victims about this, she has a right to confront witnesses. In some cases, there are no victims, so she’s not prejudiced one iota by not being able to take these Class C witnesses. The burden of proof is on the State. 1 believe I can meet the burden of proof as it pertains to these people named in the Indictment without calling them, that they were harassed, harmed, or whatever all the other things are in the statute. But she does not have a right to confront victims She has a right to a confrontation of witness against him. And she will certainly have that right at trial. Paragraph, and I could go through them paragraph by paragraph, T won't do that. But paragraph 19, she says numerous pretrial motions and motions in limine must be heard by the Court, and an evidentiary hearing with witnesses from all over the state, the logistics need to be taken into consideration. All of that is a sham for speedy, that -- pigital Court Reporter (356) 450-1393,10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 14 because she’s never -- she’s been on this case since July 2015. She’s not filed one pretrial motion yet And I can’t imagine that there’s witnesses from all over the state that have any relevance to the charge that this defendant is charged with, which is filing simulated legal process. And the issues in this case are relatively very simple. Did he file them? I think I have proof of that, and I'll use one witness to do that. Are they simulated legal process? We will introduce them, and that is a decision for a jury to make. That's what/this/case is about. And it’s not about, I mean, just»for example, we set a -- some depositions of Pam Stewart, and relayed in a motion to the Court about why I did not classify her originally as a Class C witness. It’s because I could not prove easily, I felt at that time, that she was a public official. And that’s the only issue that she is involved in, in this case, is whether or not she is a public official. and of course, the simulated legal process indicted her, or True Billed against her, and so we're talking terminology there. She now wants to take -- this is something new that she’s discovered now that I’ve filed as Class C -- she now wants to take the depositions of her lawyers over in the Department of Education, who provided me with the transcript of her appointment as a public official in the minutes of the Jennifer b. Musgrove pigital couse Reporter Third Judicial cireuse (3as)456-233310 u 12 13, 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 2 24 25 15 Board of Governors of the Department of Education. And that is just absolutely asinine that she needs to depose the lawyers who prepared these documents, which are official documents. Let me just jump ahead to paragraph 27, I'm just kind of hitting the high spots. Let’s see, also the holidays November, December, and January, caused inavailability of State witness and necessary witness. That is not true simply not true. In December and November, we gave her 27 days in October and November. In December we gave her nine days, and she used December the 3%, December the 4‘, and December the 29°. But she alleges that the holidays caused unavailability of the State and necessary witnesses. Simply not true. Didn‘t cause any of that. Simply not a true statement. In paragraph 30, she indicates that a - in the very last page of it, furthermore, in past history of the case there was a continuance given, or a hearing reset, due to the medical condition of State Attorney Meggs. That was done in May of 2015, when Steve Crawford was the counsel of record I happened to be in the hospital, and all that was, was a status conference and a motion to change conditions of bond ‘That caused her absolutely no delay and has no bearing on whether or not this case should be continued on February the Jennifer t, Musgrove (396/458-233310 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 16 So as the Court is aware in looking at all of this, we have deposed people for hours on end about things that are totally irrelevant, that will never be used, and never asked the witness: What do you expect to be testifying about? That has not been done as of yet. I currently have a box now of depositions. One FDLE agent was deposed nearly all day, and she says that she wants -- that she does not end the/deposition. she says your deposition will be continued to a later date. And now she wants to go back and re-depose all of those other people. And I’m just opposed to it. This case was started in 2014. We are now/in 2016, and it needs to be tried. So I'm opposed to thé continuance for that and a multitude of other reasons. THE COURT: I'm going to grant the Defense motion to continue. I have questioned whether it’s warranted or not but frankly, I'm going to bend over backwards to give Mr. Trussell a fair trial. It is an unusual case. If he is convicted, I know that they will contend that it was not a fair proceeding, and that just kind of goes with the territory. It does involve potentially very serious penalties. Resetting this trial does create major problems for a small county like Dixie County. We've gone through a lot of work to get this thing set. Basically, they have to close down business for a week while we're there, so it will take some bigital Court Reporter (396/456-133910 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 17 discussion with them to get a new trial date. But all-in-all, I just don’t want Mr. Trussell to be able to complain that he hadn‘t been treated with the utmost fairness. It is going to take an emergency situation for the Court to continue this trial again. I am going to have to get with the Court Administrator in the Third Circuit and work out a trial time. Tt will be sometime in June. I just, I mean, our options are limited, because like I say, they have, basically can't have court for a week while we're there. So, you know, we/re just going to have to get it set. Four months would be June 1%. I’m going to set it as quickly as I can after that date that we'll work out with Dixie County. Do you have any major conflicts in June, Mr. Meggs? MR. MEGGS: No, sir THE COURT: Ms. Garcia? MS. GARCI. No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 1 will get an order out with the new date then. Like I say, it’s going to take some discussion. It took some discussion previously, and we'll have to work that out. Based upon the change in the Rule, it’s my belief that your motion for subpoena duces tecum is now moot. Do you agree with that, Ms. Garcia? MS. GARCT: Yes, Your Honor. (94645-139910 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 18 THE COURT: All right. Well, I’m going to deny that motion as moot. Anything else that you can think of Mr. Meggs? MR. MEGGS Judge, I will just say this, that knowing this trial was where it was and the motion to continue was filed before the jury summonses went out, I’ve repeatedly asked Counsel Garcia to set the motion for a hearing, and before we sent those out, it was not done. I really think Trussell ought to have to pay) for the juror cost, for those people to be summoned in February 1°t and then told to go home. I don’t know what the cost is to do that, but I'd attribute the jury being summonsed and called into the courtroom totally at the hands of Terry Trussell and his lawyer. THE COURT: Ms. Garcia? MS, GARCI. Your Honor, it’s not fair to my client to have him pay for the jury summonses. I’ve been doing this 25 years myself. I’ve not once seen a defendant have to pay when a trial was continued. And I've seen thousands of trials continued on the eve of trial, so I don’t think that's a fair request, Your Honor. dust for the record, Dana did testify is -- that it’s about $500 for sending out jury information, but 1 -- THE COURT: 1/11 reserve jurisdiction on that. If he’s pigital Court Reporter Taird Judioia: circuit (306) 458-139310 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 convi will acqui! impos that. cted, Mr. Meggs, if you'll remind me of your request consider that at the time of sentencing. If he were = 19) tted, then I think that may be a question whether we can e costs against him. So I just reserve jurisdiction on You can remind me at a later date if he’s convicted Anything else? MR, MEGGS: Not from the State THE COURT: Ms. Garcia? MS. GARCIA: No, Your Honor. Thank you for your time. THE COURT: All right. Y/all have a good day (The proceedings were concluded at 11:44 a.m. Jennifer b. Musgrove pigital court Reporter Third Judicial Chroust (386) 456-133310 W 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 20 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-CF, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, versus TERRY TRUSSELL, Defendant, before the Honorable James C. Hankinson. Circuit Judge, on January 27, 2016 That I9was authorized to and did transcribe the digitally tecorded proceedings had during said Motion Hearing and that ‘the foregoing pagés, numbered 1 through 19, 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 9th day of February, 2016 a vag er Digital Court Reporter Third Judicial Circuit of Florida (386) 758-1333 Digital Coure Reporter (306/456-2339