You are on page 1of 28
Filing # 42335202 E-Filed 06/06/2016 07:31:13 AM. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, STATE OF FLORIDA, | Case No.: 2014-201CF TERRY G. TRUSSELL, Defendant, NOTICE OF RE-REMOVAL OF MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA OF REPRESENTATIVE YOHO AND MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF FEDERAL JUDGE MARK E. WALKER OF JUNE 3, 2016 ON THE BASIS OF MISREPRESENTATION TO THE COURT BY MOVING PARTY’S ATTORNEYS FUNDAMENTALLY MATERIAL TO THE COURTS ORDER WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF DENYING STATE DEFENDANT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN THIS FAVOR. Respectfully submitted, Inger Gareia, Esq Garcia Legal Group Attorney for Trussell 4839 Volunteer Road; #514 Davie, Florida 33330 Cellular: (954) 394-7461 Tel.: (954) 894-9962 Fax: (954) 446-1635 ServiceE-Mail:attorney@ingergarcia.com By: /s/ Inger M. Garcia, Esq. Inger Garcia, (FBN:0106917) Electronically Filed Dixie Case # 14000201CFAXMX 06/06/2016 07:31:13 AM Contents MISREPRESEN1 ATTORNEY: INJURY TO D) ‘THE PETITION: ‘ATION BY HOUSE GENERAL COUNSE! . TO TERRY TRUSSE! ENDANT’S CASE: 4 Table of Authorities Rules General Counsel’s Interpretation of House Rule VII(3), House Rule VII) Statutes Florida Statute 843.0855... Constitutional Provisions Florida Constitution, Article I, Sec. 5 8 U.S. Constitution, First Amendment. Exhibits EXHIBIT 1 ~ Rule VII Letter & Rule EXHIBIT 2— Common Core Curriculum True Bill EXHIBIT 3 - Si ‘Truc Bill jegmeis EXHIBIT 3 — Siegmeister Depo Excerpts EXHIBIT 3 — HOW THE JUDICIARY STOLE THE RIGH [ION (Excerpt) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No.: 2014-201CF v Terry G. Trussell, Defendant, i NOTICE OF RE-REMOVAL OF MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA OF REPRESENTATIVE YOHO AND MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF FEDERAL JUDGE MARK E. WALKER OF JUNE 3, 2016 ON THE BASIS OF MISREPRESENTATION TO THE COURT BY MOVING PARTY’S ATTORNEYS FUNDAMENTALLY MATERIAL TO THE COURTS ORDER WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF DENYING STATE DEFENDANT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN THIS FAVOR. ‘The Defendant, Terry G. Trussell, by and through his undersigned attorney, moves this Court to vacate the court’s order of June 03, 2016, as obtained by misrepresentation by omission to defense counsel and to the court, on which the court improvidently granted as to findings that the information sought by subpoena of Representative Yoho is not relevant or material to the state court criminal case of Defendant Terry Trussell. MISREPRESENTATION BY HOUSE GENERAL COUNSEL TO TERRY TRUSSELL’S ATTORNEY: ‘The misrepresentation was first made by U.S. House General Counsel in his letter of April 28, 2016 to Defense Counsel Inger M. Garcia, The second paragraph of that letter offers the General Counsel's Interpretation of House Rule VIII(3), seeming to cite parts from the rule. It states: 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL Rule VIII of the rules of the House of Representatives requires all Members and Employees of the House to determine, among other things, whether (i) the subpoena seeks information relating to the official functions of the House, (ii) information sought is “material and relevant” to the proceedings, and (iii) the information sought is “consistent with the privileges and rights of the House, See House Rule VIII(3), 114% Congress, (2015) enclosed, The next paragraph of the General Counsel’s Letter goes on: Accordingly, to enable Congressman Yoho to make the required determinations under House Rule VIII, please advise me in writing of exactly what testimony you seek from hhim, and how and why such testimony is material and relevant to your ease. ... The problem is that the House Counsel's interpretation ignored Rule VIII(1). It is clear from that paragraph that Rule VIII in its entirety only applies to subpoenas as they relate to House business, not the individual business of a representative, even if that business is in his capacity as representative, when that business has nothing to do with the House asa whole. The opening paragraph, Rule VIII(1) is as follows: “When a Member ... of the House is properly served with a judicial ... subpoena directing appearance as a witness relating to official functions of the House ... such Member ... shall comply, consistent with the privileges and rights of the House with the judicial ... subpoena ... as hereinafter provided, unless otherwise determined under this rule.” See Exhibit 1, letter and attachment of Rule VIL Without that understanding, as you read the rest of the Rule, the whole House is getting involved in every subpoena of a Member, (or his staff) for every litigable thing they or their staf! might have witnessed or been privy to back in their home district, including automobile accidents. NOTICE OF REMOVAL The rule is concerned with the official business of the House, not of the individual representatives. When it grants the Member, or Congre: or anyone else, including this or any court, the power to determine the relevance or materiality of the evidence sought, it does not mean the relevance or materiality of evidence to the judicial or state case UNLESS the matter that is being Subpoenaed has first been determined to be of general House concern. Only then does the matter rise above that of subpoenaing any witness to one of subpoenaing matters that are pending before, or which are products of the House as a separate co-equal branch institution. This is just common sense. The House does not purport to have either the legal power, expertise, or even the interest, to determine the relevance or materiality of evidence to a judicial case that is not before it. Nor is it interested in granting federal courts the power to determine the relevance and materiality of evidence in cases before state courts. There is a fundamental Constitutional reason for that which include but goes beyond Separation of Powers, and in a state case, the sovereignty of the state and dignity of the state court, That misrepresentation was then carried over to this court in Representative Yoho’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, at top of page 10 of 25 where it begins by addressing Rule VIII(3) without ever addressing the limiting function of Rule VIII(1), ‘The real issue in a criminal case such as this is of the Sixth Amendment Right of the Defendant “to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” ...to the court wherein he is being tried, The effect of this Court's ruling is for a court with very limited knowledge of the case or issues to nullify a subpoena, the Sixth Amendment compulsory process to which the defendant is entitled, based on a limited purpose hearing that is out of the context of case, and without the factual basis that appears in trial as it appears in trial, for no reason but the status of the witne: NOTICE OF REMOVAL If this court, a federal court can do that, why not the state court of another state or county, or even a different court of the same county? This invokes an irregularity in the ability to prepare a defense under the false guise of congressional importance and the “short notice” just a few days before trial that is itself created by the House Counsel who had the Subpoena a whole month earlier and knew or should have known that the subject matter had nothing to do with matters of significance to the House worth impairi ie the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses. Moreover, the avoidance of mentioning that part of Rule VII(1) that reasonably limits the scope of the Rule to matters of national importance, by House Counsel strongly suggests a design to abuse the process congress has designed. INJURY TO DEFENDANT'S CASE: This court has essentially taken away Defendant’s right to a relevance and mat ality determination by the state trial court by not only ruling that the Congressman’s testimony was not relevant or material to the defense, but that the state court may apply that ruling by collateral estoppel. In so doing, this court at page 29 of its order states: “Frankly, the theories of relevance advanced by Trussell only make sense if one adopts Trussell’s philosophy of government.” That simply is not true, The issue here is not simply “Trussell’s philosophy” but the Congressman’s observation of the same kind of corruption in Washington on a broader scale as seen by Trussell at home. While it was rare to discuss that kind of official corruption in serious company in 2014, itis fast becoming common place as a result of the intense presidential political atmosphere This court claims in that same paragraph, that if Trussell is actually defending the people in his county, that is nota defense. That is categorically not true for as indicated below, such defenses are built into the sub-section 5 of the charging statute AND the First Amendment protects NOTICE OF REMOVAL nonviolent protests and petition against government, including government corruption. It is very interesting that this court writes off Mr. Trussell’s desires for Sixth Amendment protections as a desire for trial in a “court of the government of his imaginings.” This court goes on to suggest that there is some distinction between the law as it is and the law according to the Constitutions of Florida and the United States as discussed below. The suggestion of the entire paragraph is that this court has learned, or determined that Mr. Trussell is somehow incompetent or a “sovereign citizen” type, whatever that is, and is not entitled to the ordinary respect of a government official for an elder citizen ... one who served in our military, in war, and in all of 72 years has never been convicted of a crime, that in fact, in May, he was the foreman of the statutory grand jury. It is clear that this court is prejudiced against him because such writing as in that paragraph on page 29 has no basis in the facts before this court. The issues raised by the House Counsel, responded to by Defense Counsel and addressed by this court relate only to the statutes under which Defendant is charged. But those aren’t the only issues forthe defense, The charging statute, Florida Statute §843,0855 has a subpart 5 which states three separate defenses. Defense (b) and (c), relevant here, in turn suggest both state and federal Constitutional Defenses. (b) This section does not prohibit individuals from assembling freely to express opinions or designate group affiliation or association. (c) This section does not prohibit or in any way limit a person’s lawful and legitimate access to the courts or prevent a person from instituting or responding to legitimate and lawful legal process, The defenses that these two suggest are Petition Clause defenses arising under the Florida Constitution, Article I, Sec. 5 and the U.S, Constitution, First Amendment. Article I, Section 5 is only identified as “The Right to Assemble”. But it ties the right to assemble intimately with the rights of petition and to instruct representatives, which is what this case is all about. The NOTICE OF REMOVAL allegations are essentially that defendant unlawfully petitioned government for a redress of grievances with a petition that violates the sedition act, repealed more than two hundred years ago, but instead of publishing the seditious libel in a newspaper, defendant published it to those officials concerned, the court and the sheriff. Florida Constitution Art, I, Sec. tes: Right to Assemble: ‘The people shall have the right, peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the government for redress of grievances The First Amendment states, relevantly, “Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 6 NOTICE OF REMOVAL THE PETITIONS: Attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 are the documents which the State claims violated Section 843.0855, TI is court is asked to read the context below and see for itself that these documents are reasonably the first parts of Petitions to Government agencies to Redress Grievances with other Government agencies that are very much in the nature of instructing representatives like the sheriff to investigate certain persons for certain kinds of corruption. This kind of corruption is actually known, in its particulars to one of the alleged victims of the liable, the “victim” who interfered with the real, not “common law” but real state grand jury to derail its investigation, That person is the state attorney, Jeff Siegmeister. What Exhibit 2 is about is that State Attomey Jeff Siegmeister interfered with and derailed the investigation of the real state grand jury of which Defendant was the Foreman. Then Defendant got an assembly of persons together which assembly they called “The People’s Common Law Grand Jury”, and examined the evidence and on that, designed a petition to government to redress grievances which is Exhibit 2 and 3 hibit 4 is the face page and pages 173 and 174 of the deposition of Jeff Siegmeister. They are part of the exhibits attached to Defendant's Opposition to the Motion to Quash. At page 173 Mr. Siegmeister discusses a real state grand jury investigation into billions of dollars of corruption in the Palm Beach School Board District. That was a similar investigation to which Defendant, as foreman of the real grand jury, was instigating in Dixie County with the real grand jury. On page 174 Mr. Siegmeister begins to ramble and the topic is lost. But the point is clear: The plausibility of big time corruption in the school board is also real Exhibit 5 is the introductory pages, summarizing four aspects of the First Amendment Right to Petition that are virtually never discussed in polite judicial society that give rise to the title of NOTICE OF REMOVAL the law review article: How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition, 32 UWLA Law Rev. 257, (summer 2000), and the relevant footnotes. The Third and Fourth Aspects are especially relevant to the kind of investigation that Defendant was doing, and the government's response to it, That is, when NGPOs, (Non-governmental Patriotie Organizations) investigate government corruption they are made out to be “enemies of the state” by both the corrupt officials, and those officials who do not believe that government corruption is real, or significant, or affects them and their governmental friends. This is why the conversations with Representative Yoho are important to the defense: They show a continuity of design, a discussion where the Congressman describes such pervasiveness of corruption in Washington that he can do nothing, that the only place to start unwinding the corruption is back home, in the district where Trussell should expose it and confront lawfully. The question is, under the circumstances does “lawfully” include “under the protection of the First Amendment Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances”, broadly construed as a First Amendment Right, must be to avoid chilling the right of the people to examine and expose corruption sufficient to initiate professional investigation of it, and the bringing of criminal charges, against the corrupt and corruptors, not against the very People the First Amendment is designed to protect from just such government abuse of power. Today, because of the vitality of presidential politics, such discussion of generalized government corruption is becoming more common and acceptable. But just two years ago, such a statement by a congressman to one of his interested constituents was unlikely, or maybe a copout. ‘That is, don’t put the burden on me, but you go down there and stir up the people, create a political cause and band wagon for me, the congressman, to jump on board and ride it to a “cause celebre”. NOTICE OF REMOVAL And against all odds, that is exactly what Mr. Trussell is doing—protected by the right to petition government for a redress of grievances against the government. It is submitted that Mr. Trussell has a right to present his cause, and the evidence thereof, to the jury—afier all, it was his Congressman who said that the Nation and its representatives in Washington where too corrupt to do anything about local corruption in any, let alone all of the 435 congressional districts throughout the United States. Under the premises, either people, common non-governmental patriots like Mr. Trussell organize ... assemble... to do the job as a due respect for their own oath to the Constitution requires, or clearly, the job will never even be under taken. Wherefore, itis respectfully requested that this court vacate its order of June 3, 2016, in this matter and remand it to the State Court to proceed de-novo and pursuant to state law. By: /s! Inger M. Garcia, served this 6" THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above motion has be day of June, 2016, to all parties listed on the following Service List in accordance with Rule 1.080, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 2.516, Florida Rules of Administrative Procedure. ‘The notarized copies shall be served and filed June 6, 2016. Respectfully submitted, Inger Garcia, Esq, Garcia Legal Group Attorney for Trussell 4839 Volunteer Road; #514 Davie, Florida 33330 Cellular: (954) 394-7461 Tel.: (954) 894-9962 Fax: (954) 446-1635, ServiceE-Mail:attormey@ingergarcia.com By: /s! Inger M. Garcia, Esq. NOTICE OF REMOVAL Inger Gareia, Esq. (FBN:0106917) SERVICE LIST William N. Meggs Leon County Courthouse 301 S. Monroe Street ‘Tallahassee, Florida 32399 email: hurstmé@ileoncountyfl gov 10 TODD 8. TATELMAN KERRY W KIRCHER iS AEBSF AST COUNSE, é FLEXEM ROUMEL WILLIAM PITTARD. {SISEANTEOLNSEL ‘REPU GENERAL cous U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ROSENBERG OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 219 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING. INDERLY ANN SARAH E.CLOUSE SARAUK. CURRAN April 28, 2016 VIA FIRST CLASS & ELECTRONIC MAIL (ATTORNEY@INGERGARCIA.COM) Inger M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Legal Group, P.A. 4839 Volunteer Road #514 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33330 Re: Trial Subpoena to Congressman Ted S. Yoho Dear Ms. Garcia: I write on behalf of the Honorable Ted §, Yoho, U.S. Representative for the 3rd congressional district of Florida, regarding the trial subpoena that you have directed to him. The subpoena is dated April 24, 2016, and is returnable on June 6, 2016, Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires all Members and employees of the House to determine, among other things, whether (i) the subpoena seeks information relating to the official functions of the House, (ii) the information sought is “material and relevant" to the proceedings. and (iii) the information sought is “consistent with the privileges and rights of the House.” See H.R. Rule VIII(3), 114th Cong. (2015) (copy enclosed). Accordingly, to enable Congressman Yoho to make the required determinations under House Rule VIII, please advise me in writing of exactly what testimony you seek from him, and how and why such testimony is material and relevant to your case, ‘The Congressman does not need to know the precise questions you intend to ask, but he does need to know the topics about which you propose to interrogate him. I would appreciate hearing from you by no later than close of business on Wednesday, May 11,2016, Duc to the stringent mail delivery procedures put in place by the House of Representatives after the various anthrax and ricin attacks, please do not communicate with me at the address above. Rather, please use fax (202/226-1360) or electronic mail (toddaatelman@ mail house.gov). Inger M. Garcia, E: April 28, 2016 Page 2 ‘Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1 look forward to hearing from you Sincerely, Mie nior Assistant Counsel Enclosure ce: The Honorable Ted 8. Yoho fvia electronic mail only) RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS PREPARED BY" Karen L. Haas Clerk of the House of Representatives JaNvany 6, 2015 CONTENTS RULE L—The Speaker TL Other Officers and Officials TL —~The Members, Delegates, and Resident Commistioner of Pusrte ico IAT Hall of the House ‘V.—Droadeasting Use Hose ‘VI-—Offiial Reporters and Newe Media Galloris ‘VIL—Revords of tie Hose ‘VIL Response vo Subpoena DC Questions of Privilege Organisation of Comnitons XL Precedures of Committees and UnOnished Business XIL— Receipt and Reforeal of Measures and Matters XILL— Calendars and Carunitioe Reports, TEV. — Order snd Priority of Businoss “XV.—Busineas in Order on Special Doss SVI—Motions and Amendments XVII-—Decaram and Debate XVIE—The Cominittee af the Whole House on the stste of the Union ‘XEK-— Motions Following the Amendment Stage XX-— Voting tod Quorum Call [XXI-— Restrictions be Certain Bills 3ST Hage and Senate Relations YM — Cade of Ofital Conduct. XXIV.— Limitations on Use of Oficial Funds XXV—Limitaions on Outside Barnod Incame andl Acceptance of Gits 2XVI— Financial Disslsure XXVEL-Disclozure by Membors and Staff of Biaployment Negotistions XXVEL—iReserved! ‘XXDK-— General Provisions HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 6 Jstention, Rerords s0 delivered are the permanent property of the House and Tematn subject vo this rule and any ‘order of the Hoaee. Public avaitabitics 8. (a) The Clerk stall authorize the ‘Archiviet to make records delivered lunder clause 2 available for public use, subject to clause 4(b) and any order of ‘the House: (x1) A record alsll immadistels be made available if it was previously ‘made avallable for public ase by the House or = committes or a sub- committee. @) Aa investigative recard that con ‘tains personal data relating ta a spe- cifle living person (the disclosure of ‘which would be an unwarranted inva Son of persoaal privacy), an adminis: trative recard relating to personael, or cord relating ta ¢ auaripg shar wat Slosed under clause 2e)2) af rae XT shall be made available iF It bas Veen in existence for 8 rears, (8) A record for which a time, sched ale. or condition for svallability is speoitied by order of the House shall ve ‘lade available bu accordaner with that order. Except as otherwise provided by border of the House, a record of & 00m mittee for which a time, schedule, or Condition for availablitty 1s specitiag by order of the committee (entered uring “the Congress in which the record is made oF acquired by the com mittee) shall be made available im ac- cordance wish the order of the com siete (A record (other than a record re ferred to in subparagraph (1), 0), oF @) shail be made availabe #3 has been in existence for 90 years. 4. (a) A re0ord may not be made avaliable for public use under cleuse 3 ithe Clerk determines that such avail- ability would be detrimental to the [public interest or ineonsiatent with the Fights and privileges of the House. The Clerk shail/notity in eiting She chair and ranking minority somber of the Committee on House Administration of any exch determinstion. (®) A. determination of the Clerk ‘under paragraph (a) le subject to later Dfdere of the House and, in the case of 2 record ofa committes, later orders of he oonazaittes, 5. (@) Thle role does not supersede rule VII or clause 11 of rule X and docs not uuthorize the pubho discloaure uf any record if euch diselosare is probib- {tea by law of exeestive order of the President. (b) The Committee on House Admin istration may presoribe quidelinet snd regulations governing the applicability and implementation of this rule, (c) A committee may withtraw from ‘the Notional Archives and Records Ad ministration any recoed of the corn: mittee delivered to the Archivist unde: this vale. Such a withdrawal shall be 00a temporary huasis and for oficial Definition of record 6 In this rule the term “record” moan¢ auy official, permanent record ff the House (other than & record of ax Individual Member, Delogute. or Resi- dent Commissioner), iactuding— (a) with respect to a committee, an official, permanent record of tne committee (including aay record af a legislative, oversight, or other activ- ity of such commiltes or a sub ‘omanittee thereat: and (b) with respect 29 au officer of the House elected under rave D. 30 offi. ‘lal, permanent record made ar ac- quired in the course of the dutius of such officer. Withdrawal of papers 7. A memorial or other paper pre- sented ta the House may not be with- drawn from its Hes without tte leave, Tr withdrawn certified copies thereof all be left iu the Office of che Clerk. ‘When an act passes for the sestlement ofa claim, the Clerk may transmit to {the officer charged with the sestlement ‘hereot the papers ou fla In the Office of the Clerk relating to such claim. Tue Clerk may lend temporarily to an Ottioer or bureau of the executive de- ‘pariments any papers on file In the Of ‘es of the Clerk relating to any matter pending before such officer or Buresi, faking proper receipt therefor. RULE VI Hsseoxse 70 SUBFORNAS 1. When a Member, Delegate, Rest dont Commissioner, officer, or eri- ployes of the House is properly served ‘with a judicial or admicistrative sub- poca or judicial order directing ap- ‘earance as 4 witness relating to ihe official functions of the House or for he production or disclosure of any document relating to the offi anc ons of the House, such Member, Dele gate, Resident, Commissioner, oificer, or employes shalt comply. consistently with the peivileges and rights of the House, with the fudicial or administra- tive subpoena or judiciat order as here- Inafter provided, unless atherwise do. termined under this rale, 2, Upen receipt of & properly scrved Jjudicfat or adminsteasive subpoena or judisisl order described in clause 1a Member, Delegate, Residoat Commis Sioner, ‘officer. or employee of the House shall promptiy notify the Speak: fer of ite recetpt in writing. Suot not. ‘cation hail promptiy pe isld. before the House hy the Speaker. During a pe Hod of recess of sdjourament of longer than three days, notification va. the House is not required antil the recon. Yening of the House, whan the notifies- tion shalt promptiy be lsid before the House by the Speaker. 4%. Once notidcation nas been laid be- fore the House, the Member, Delegate, Rasident Commissioner. offiger. or em- ployer of the Hoase shall determine ‘Whether the Istuance af the Joeicial or saministrative subpoena. or judicial ‘order described in clause J ls a nroper reroise of Jurisdiction by the sour ie material and relevant, and is. com sistent with the privileges and rights of She House, Such Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner. officer, oF em= ployee shail notify the Speaker before Seeking judicial determination of these matter %. Upon Getermnisation whether & ju- dicial or administrative subyorna or Jgudioial onder described in clause 1 is 3 Proper exercise of jurtsiiction by the Court, is material and relevant, and 3s, Consistent with the privileges and Fights of the House, the Mesnber, Dele- ate, Resident Commissioner, oiticer, fbr employee of the Houso shall imme: lately notify the Speaker of the deter- mization in waiting. 5. The Spesker shall inform the House of « determination whether a Ju disial or administrative subpoena or Jadleial order described iu clause 1 is a Droper oxerelee of jurisdiction by ue Court, 1g material and relevant, and Is consistent with the privileges and Hlehts of the House, Im ea informing the House, the Speaker shall generally de~ serfbe’ the revords or information SOUEDC, During a period of recess or ad- Joumment of longer than three days, ‘och sotisicasion is not requized nell the reconvening of tne Hoaee, when the notification shall promptiy be laid be- {ore the House by the Speaker (a) Excopt as specified fn paragraph () of omerwise ordered by the House, ‘pon uotifigation to the House that « judicial or administrative subpoena ot Jndictal order described in clause 1 is a Droper exeroise of jurisdiction ty tho Coate, is material abd televant, ad t= consistent. with the povilegés and Fights of the House, the Member, Dele- ate, Hesident Commissioner, otficer, ¢ employee of the House abalt comply ‘with the judicial or administrative aub- Dorma or juieiel order by suppiving Certified copies (o) Under no circumstences may min- utes or transcripts of exeuutive ses Blons, or evidence of witmosses in r0- spect’ thereto, be disclosed cr copied Boring a period of recess or adjourn ment of longer than three days, the Speaker may eusborise compliance or ‘ake such other sction as the Speaker considers appropriate under” tho clr eamstances. Upea the Teconveuing of {he House, all matvers that transpired fanser thie clause stall promptly be laid before the House by the Speakar. 7, A-copy of this rale shall bp tran mitted bp the Clerk to the court whon judicial or administration eubpoane fr judicial order described ia clanse ts issued an served an e Member, Dolo gave, Resident Commissioner, officer, Sr employee of the House {Nothing tn this rule shall be con- struct fo deprive, condition, or waive ‘he constitutional or legal privileges oF rights applioatle ot available at any Gime to a Member. Delegase, Resident Commissioner, atfoar, oF eraslovee of ‘aie House, oF of the House jiset, or the Fight of such Member, Delegate, Rest Gent Commissioucr, ‘officer, or om: lovee. of of the House Itself, sa eager’ 6 such privileges or riehte before & court {nthe Unites States RULE TE Qqubstioxs or PurviLeor 1. Questions of privslege shall be ‘ust, Those affecting the niente of the House collectively. ite safety, dignity, and the inteprity of ts proceedings! ‘nd second, those affecting the rights, Sepuration, and conduct of Mombers, Delegates," cr the Resident Commis: stoner, individually, in their represent ative capacity only. 2 tay) A rosolucion reported ap a ‘queotion of the privileges of the House, Gr edlered from tne door by the Major” ‘ty Leader or the Minority Leader a5 a ‘auestion of che privileges of the House, tr olfered se privileged under clause 1 Section 7, article I of the Conetitation, Shall bave precedence of all other ques: ‘lone except motions to adjourn. snes Slution offe=sd rom the foot by = Mombor, Delegate, or Resident Com- imlesionér other than the Mayority Leader or the Minority Leader as 4 question of the prittleges of the Houre shall have precedence of all other ques- Hons except motions to adjeurn only ai a cme or plase, dasignated ty the Speaker, in the legislative sobsduie withis two legislative days afver the day on which the proponest announces to the House an invention to offer the resolution and the form of the eral. tion. Oral annoaacement of the form of the resolution may be disponsed wim BY unanimous consort. {@) The time aliottad for debate on a rusclution offered from the finor ke & {Guestion of the privileges of the Houce shall be equally divided between (A) he proponent ef tho tesalction, and (B) the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, or a desienes, ae determined By the Speaker. (2) A question of personal privclege shall have pracodence of all other ques tions except motions to adjourn, RULE X OncANZATION OF CommerTEEs Committees and their lezisl Jurisdiction 1. There shall te in the House ths fol- lowing standing committees. each of ‘which shall have the Jorisdiotion and related functions esiened by this clause and clauses 2,3, ana 4. All nitis, Fesolavions, and other matters relating fo subjects within the Jurisdiction. of the standing committocs iisted in tale clause ehall be referred to those com. mittens, io accordance with clanae 2 of rule Xl, as follo @) Gommittee oo Agriculture. )-Adulverasion of seeds, ingect eats, and protection af binds and AAnimils in forest reserves, @) Agriculture generally, (® Agricultural and industeiad chemiscry. @ Agricoltral colleges and ex- periment stations, {) “Apeshisral econo and. RULES OF THE (6) Asricaltural edacation exten- ston seevioes. ) Agrioulvaral peoduction and muneketing and stabilisation | of prices of agricultural products, ang Commodities (not including die. fribution outside of the United tates) () Animal industry and diseases of animale (@ Commodity exchanges. (Go) Groep issusance and soll con- (GU) Dairy inauscrs. (2) Eotomolory and plant quar. antine '@5) Extension of farm oreait and ‘arm securits, (4) Inspection of livestock, pout try, meat products, and seafood and seatood products. (US) Porestry in geueral apd for- est revarves uther thas tose ore ‘ted from the public domain, 6) Huma nutrition and home economies, G1 Plant industry, solts, and ae~ rlea}vural engineering. (08) Rural electrification, (08) Bural development, (20) Water conservation related to activities of the Departament of Az riculeare, (b) Committer on Appropriations. (D Appropriation of the revenue ‘or the support of the Government (@) Resctesions of appropriations contained in appropriation Acts, (@) Transiers of unexpended bal ances. (@) Bills and Joint resolutions re- parted by other committees. tiat provide uew entitlement authority fas defined in sevtion 39) of the Congressional Budget Act of 3874 and. referred tothe commuttoe ‘dor clase 402), @) Bills and Joint resolutione ‘that provide new budget authority, Manltation on the use of funds, oF other snthority relating to new dt. reot loan obligations and now loas guerantee commitments. ref ereneing sectior: S04) of the Con- gression) Budget Act of 197 (0) Committee on Armed Services. @) Ammunition depots; forse: ar senals; and Army, Navy, and Als Force reservations and” establish @) Common dotence generally (@_ Conservation. development, sand nse of naval petroleum and of} Shale reserves, G@) The Department of Defense generally, Including the Depart monts of the Army, Navy, and AIP Force, gexeraily. (6) Interoceante canals generally, imcluding measures velating ta the ‘masstonanee, operation, and. ad Inibistation of iatereceamie ea (6) Merchant Marine Academy sand State Moritime academies, (P) Milstary applications of nu- lear energy. @ Tactieal intelligence and ine telligence-related activities of the Depstement af Detense (@) National seourity aspeots ot merchant marine, including flnan- lal assistanos for the construction and operation of vessela, mainte ‘ance of tho U.S, shipbullaine and ship repair industrial base, ¢abo~ tage, cargo preference, and mer chant marine officers and seamen 435 these matters relate to Te Ba ‘tional security. 0) Pas, promotion, retirement, and other benafite and privileges of ‘mombers of the armed forces, (Ua) Seiontific research and devel opment in support of tho armed services 112) Selective service. 413) Size and composition af she Amy, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Feree, (4) Soldiers’ and saitore’ heres 5) Strategic and critical mate rlale nocescary for the cammon de- tense, (26) Cemeteries administered ty the Deparzmont of Defensa, (@) Committee on the Budget. ) Concurrent resolutions on the budget (2s derined im section 94) of the “Congressional Budget Act’ af 36iH), other matters required to be Teferred to the commnitzee ander t- Hes Uf and IV of that Act, and other measures setting forth appro priate levels of budget totais for the Daited States Government. (@ Budget process generally. {9) Establishment, extension, snd enforcemeat, of sieclal oonirals over the Federal budget, sncluaing ue budgetary creatment of off budget Pederal avencies and meas lures providing exemption trom re- action under any” otder sued ‘under part © of the Balanced Bode- et and Emergency Deficit Contral ‘Ast of 185, (©) Committee on Rducation and the Workforce. (2) Ohild labor. @) Gallande: University and Howart University and Hospital. (8) Convict labor and the entey of goods made hy ccaviets inte inter State commence (4) Food programe for ebitdren in schools. (S) Labor standards and statis ea, (6) Baacatton or labor generaily. @ Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes (©) Regulation or prevention of importation of foreigs laborers under contract (9) Warkere' compensation. (0) Vooational rebabititation (11) Wages and houre of tabor (02) Welfare of miners, (03) Work incentive programs, 201415006245 Date:8/15/2014 Time:4:30 PM DC,Dana D. Johnson,Dixie County B:469 P:624 True Bill We the People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law in Dixie County, Florida on August 14" 2014 at 10:00 A.M. met at the Dixie County Court House for the purpose of considering charges against: Superintendent of Schools for Dixie County, Mark Rains, Dixie County Schoo! Board : Timothy Alexander Chairman - P.O. Box 186, Cross City, FL. 32628, Cheryl Pridgen - Vice Chair - P.O. Box 1092, Cross County, FL 32628, se 8 Chuck Farmer - 254 8. E. 118th Ave, Old Town, FL 32680, zo. = Paul Gainey - P.O. Box 1205 , Cross City, FL 32628 Rae B Dwayne Rollinson - 91 S.W. 12th Street, Cross City, FL. 32628, Sess ineluding but not limited to: e az Former Governor Charlie Crist, = ee Governor Rick Scott, Refusing to give the names and phone numbers of the chose Members to the Grand Jury Foreman, Falsely instructing the Dixie County Court Clerk to prevent the Grand Jury Foreman to do his duty for the Grand Jury. Misprision of Felony. Blocking the Grand Jury Foreman access to the Members of the Grand Jury. Undermining the imtegrity for the Grand Jury. Violation of the Statutes pertaining to the Grand Jury. Violation of the instructions for the Grand Jury. Violating and refusing to follow mandated Precedent in U.S. v, Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992) Taking complete control of the Grand Jury Process. Manipulating the minds of the Grand Jury Members, Placing the Grand Jury Members in a trial court setting. Making gestures intended to influence the Members of the Grand Jury. Rushing the Grand Jury Foreman as if there was a timeline involved. Denying the people access to their Due Process of Law through the Grand Jury under the common Law of the people and protected from the other three branches of Government. Criminally conspiring with others to obstruct and block the People’s access to the Grand Ju Tampering with the Mail intended for the Grand Jury Foreman. Ud ST ony anid h the Grand Jury Violation of his Oath of Office. Breach of duty. Failed to provide Juror Hand Books to the Jurors. Refused instructions by the Grand Jury Foreman to send all necessary informational documents to the Members of the Grand Jury. Refusing to provide the Grand Jury Foreman with the names and Phone numbers of the chosen Members. Instructing the Court Clerk not to provide that information, Taking possession of the Grand Jury documents and keeping them in his possession in violation of the law requiring them to be kept in the custody of the Court Clerk, Habe ohS ‘* Calling the Grand Jury Members on the phone. '* Taking control of the Grand process in the court room in violation of the clear direction of that duty of the Garand Jury Foreman, ‘+ Causing the Grand Jury Members to look to him for approval after every statement from the Grand Jury Foreman. «Eye and body gestures behind the view of the Grand Jury Foreman, clearly designed to influence the minds of the Jurors, and designed to undermine the integrity of the Grand Jury Foreman. All in violation of the Statutes, Jury instructions, and the Supreme Court Precedents. (rule of Stare Decisis) ‘+ Refusing to act as an advisor when questions arise and instead acting. as a dictator in the process. ‘+ Totally causing serious harm to the Grand Jury Process. tall times relevant, the People’s Grand Jury did meet to consider crimes in Dixie County, Florida jeainst Jeffery A. Siegmeister, We find that Jeffery A. Siegmeister did Obstruct Justice by the foregoing in Item #1 Atal times relevant, the Grand Jury did meet to consider crimes in Dixie County, Florida against Jeffery A. Siegmeister. We find that Jeffery A. Siegmeister did tamper with the Grand Jury process by the foregoing in Item #2. ‘We the Members of the People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law in Dixie County, Floride, do hereby find Probable Cause for both Counts of Obstruction of Justice and Jury Tampering against Jeffery ‘A. Siegmeister and that he was not acting according to the law of the land, Statutes nor Guiding Precedent. Therefore we the people through the People’s Grand Jury do file with the Dixie County Court Clerk this True Bill of Presentment and order the Court Clerk for Dixie County, Florida, to deliver a copy to the County Sheriff for arrest of Jeffery A. Siegmeister, ‘We further order the Dixie County court clerk to requisition for a special Prosecutor to provide Due Process of Law for the accused. Signed by Foreman of the People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law of Dixie County, Florida, on this 15 day of August, 2014. Fay EB Ves’ Ae “7 eres Trussell, Foreman ae: Peopié's Grand Jury Under Common Law ‘ in Dixie County, Florida Sworn To und Subsoribed Bef os ore Ne, This 5A Dey apis Jan. 2, 2017 of I Gia o the Cle Court ‘XIE COUNTY, FL $2628 Clerk) — ar Page 2 of 10 qi 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 173 Proof of this corruption is evident in this statewide grand jury (indiscernible) about school boards from, you know, 2010. . | Statewide grand jury, though, is not involved with us? That's Joaquin, right? No, no, no, that's actually legitimate. They keep -- it's a long story, but if you go on the National Liberty, they keep -- there was -- in 2010 there was a public corruption grand jury called statewide because it was dealing with the billions of dollars wasted in the Palm Beach School Board. Q. Okay. A. And basically there was nepotism. They couldn't fire people. I mean they had schools that couldn't be occupied. I mean, it basically said the corruption laws are so poorly written, we can't even prosecute these people, so they basically said requite the corruption laws. But everybody runs with the title. I've actually read the 75-page report. It doesn't say every politician in Florida sucks and needs to be prosecuted; it says the -- this is terrible. We need tougher laws to deal with graft. Q. $0 you looked into the intent of the law basically, to understand? A, I did. I played devil's advocate. FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE FLORIDA 850.222.5491 10 qi 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 174 Q. Right. A, I research. I don't want to argue with them on opinion. I mean, they have a First Amendment right to say whatever they want, but they don't have a First Amendment right to believe stupidity in action. 1 mean, there's a difference. When you start taking actions based on wrong beliefs, your First Amendment right ends. You can yell fire in your house all day long. You yell at public, it has an effect. Words sometimes do take on actions. But he's clearly -- you can read this long letter. I'm not going to read it to you. Q. That's okay. A, It's clearly a threat to me and confirmed -~ and confirmed it was such a serious threat that the local reporter felt compelled to call me and tell me. Q. Who's that local reporter? A. Robert Bridges. He's the editor of Lake City reporting. Not the local here; the local where I live. + Bridges? A. It's in the e-mail chain. Q. Okay. So his name is in there? A. It's in the e-mail chain. Q. Okay. FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE FLORIDA 850.222.5491 EXHIBIT 5 LAdvance Internet Edition; Cite A: 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. | page] (Summer 2000 ) HOW THE JUDICIARY STOLE THE RIGHT TO PETITION JOHN E. WOLFGRAM“ TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION LTHE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL ARROGANCE TO FOUR CENTRAL ASPECTS OF THE PETITION CLAUSE A)ASPECT ONE: THE RIGHT OF PETITION FOR REDRESS vs, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY B)ASPECT TWO: JUDICIALLY CREATED PERSONAL & OFFICIAL IMMUNITY C)ASPECT THREE: POLIT "AL PERSECUTION FOR EXERCISING PETITION RIGHTS D)ASPECT FOUR: THE JUDICIAL CONTEMPT FOR PETITIONING TO REDRESS GRIEVANCI WITH GOVERNMENT IN FEDERAL COURT ILTHE DUEL MEANING OF THE PETITION CLAUSE: PROCEDURAL vs. SUBSTANTIVE II. THE JUDICIARY IS ORGANIZED TO AVOID SUBSTANTIVE REDRESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCES AND REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF UNREDRESSABILITY IV. CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION The right (of petition) embraces dissent, and "would seem unnecessary to be expressly provided for in a republican government, since it results from the very nature and structure of its institutions. It is impossible that it could be practically denied until the spirit of liberty had wholly disappeared and the people had become so servile and Page I of 4 debased as to be unfit to exercise any of the privileges of freemen.” "[D]eprivation of it would at once be felt by every freeman as a degradation. This writer accepts the political wisdom and practical truth of the above quotation from a case that he presented and lost to the Court of Appeals. This Article examines the mechanisms by which the government has undermined and stolen the Right of Petition presently, and prospectively. To be sure, it has "practically denied” the Right of Petition. The theme suggests a practical implication. It is not that government has accomplished the “impossible” of practically denying the right, but rather that the "spirit of liberty” has almost "wholly disappeared and the people have become servile and debased.” But "fitness" to exercise the rights of freemen is never determined by the many who have become servile, but by the few who refuse, at any cost, to surrender their rights to government, It is for those very important few, lawyers, ordinary citizens and patriots, who carry the Nation's full burden of liberty on their shoulders, for whom this Article is written Forward: The Supreme Court has addressed the Petition Clause in many contexts, but four central aspects of it have been completely ignored. Those central aspects tell the story of how the Judiciary stole the most important parts of the First Amendment Petition Clause: The right of the individual to enforce his rights against government and its agents ‘The First Aspect is the right to sue government for redress. Instead of such a right, "sovereign immunity" is the rule, and government can only be sued according to its consent. Immunity abridges the right to redress grievances with government. This aspect demonstrates that sovereign immunity is unconstitutional and irrational. The reason: The right to petition government for redress and governmental immunity from redress, are direct contradictions. The former is our First Amendment, The latter is the progressive result of Supreme Court decisions. ‘The Second Aspeetis the inconsistency of personal and official immunities with the Petition Clause. Immunity "law" evolved from the Court attempting to navigate between that contradiction, on the one hand, and exposing that its immunity jurisprudence has rendered the Constitution all but unenforceable by the people against their government, on the other. That made the law so unnecessarily complex, compound and convoluted that only the rich can afford the attorneys necessary to protect constitutional rights or prosecute rights violators, That is a two-class society in the making because only the rich can obtain justice under the law. IC there is to be personal or official immunity, then there must be alternatives consistent with the Petition Clause. Both Chief Justice Burger and Justice Harlan proposed alternatives in their respective opinions in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Both the Court, and Congress, has ignored their call. The Third Aspect is judicial persecution of persons for "criminal exercise” of the Right to Petition, Because the significance of the Petition Clause is so judicially downplayed, United States Attorneys frequently charge protected activity as crimes, Defense lawyers and public Page 20f4 defenders are not trained to spot or effectively defend against such abuses. The result is putting thousands of "Political Prisoners" in jail for "criminal exercise" of Petition Clause Rights. The Right to Petition is necessarily obnoxious to government's will, After all, a petition for redress is a complaint that government violated rights and a demand that it stop, and to compensate the complainant for damages. It should not surprise anyone that government does not want the people doing that effectively. In America, a person who petitions government over grievances of constitutional rights violations that government does not want to hear, can go to prison for felonies like obstruction of justice, bank or mail fraud, or making "false claims." In the United States today there are thousands of people in federal prisons for acts and intents that were merely an exercise of a Petition Rights that is obnoxious when government (because of immunity) is stone deaf to petitions to redress grievances. It has whole systems of laws to politically persecute those who press their grievances "too far." But the common law history of the Right demonstrates that "too far" is in most cases, a part of the Right of Petition. The Fourth Aspect is the way the judiciary itself treats the Right of Petition when exercised in the courts. The Court has worked out stringent tests to protect First Amendment Rights requiring government meet standards of "compelling state interest”; "clear and present danger”, and striking laws for "vagueness" and "over breadth” that fail the tests. Yet, in petitioning before government's very own courts, the rules are vague, ambiguous, overly broad and judges determine such petitions arbitrarily and without care for the merits by dismissals which are by "law" with prejudice, as if on the merits. Appellate courts simply refuse to address m: constitutional issues in unpublished opinions that decide cases without addressing the merits. ‘The Court refuses to hear any of the four aspects raised in this article. The combined effect of these four arrogances to the Right to Petition leaves the people without effective means to communicate with government through process of law. The Court has often acknowledged that the alternative to judicial process is force. Therefore, in so abridging the right of the people to obtain just redress through the compulsory process of law, the judiciary is setting the people up for violence against government by refusing to hear their cries for justice. That is our government waging a war of oppression against its own people. I. THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL ARROGANCE TO FOUR CENTRAL ASPECTS OF THE PETITION CLAUSE " Wolferam v. Wells Fargo Bank, $3 Cal. App. 4° 43, 1 (1997), cer, denied, 322 US. 937 (1997) (citing Story COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 707 (1833)); see also Cooley, CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS : PROTECTIONS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY 728 (8 ed. 1927) (quoting Lieber, LIBERTY AND SELF GOVERNMENT 124(2d ed. 1859)) 2 Chief Justice Burger proposed that "Congress should develop an administrative or quasi-judicial remedy against the government itself to afford compensation and restitution for persons whose fourth amendment rights been violated,” 403 US at 422. His error isin thinking such a system should originate in Congress, or be limited to fourth amendment rights, U.S. v: Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), recognized a right similar to that in Bivens, arising out of the Due Process and Just Compensation Clauses. Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Bivins is that a direct action should lie for violation of any Constitutional Right. The question is not "judicial vs congressional power to ereate such a system." The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging .. the right ofthe people .. to Page 3 0f4 petition government for a redress of grievances". Thus, Congress docs not have the power to abridge the right to ‘Sue government for redress . But it can ereate alternatives that people are induced to use, so long as it does not abridge the basic right to sue for redress. The judiciary can not legislate, but the "Petition Clause" problem is not a legislative problem, but pre-cmption of common law remedies by judicially created "sovereign immunity”. Thus, the end the Chief Justice urged, is not up to Congress, nor directly up to the judiciary. Rather, it is for the judiciary to free the people from "sovereign immunity”. Only by renouncing that assumption can it free the common law fo develop remedies for rights violations. Then Congress ean develop alternatives that the people freely choose over the Right to sue in the courts * Justice Brennan believed "sovereignty was surrendered in the Plan of the Convention’, see Edelman v, Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). see Art. 1, Sections 9 and 10 for some specific "surrenders" by both federal and states at the Convention. The ninth and tenth amendments imply absence of federal immunity. The Due Process and just ‘compensation clauses implies accountability by government for its wrongs. But for those who still doubt, The Petition Clause is the specific "surrender" of governmental immunity from the pcople. * Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419(1793) Page 4 of 4

You might also like