Hoyt on Trussell

Hoyt reports on Trussell.

Hoyt wonders about this ‘injustice’ but fails to understand that Trussell was trying to play sovcit games and the Judge was not going to have anything to do with it.

He wants to know ‘why’ and the answer is simple…

Listen here, and hear how prayers did not really work.

Why can they not talk to you like you are a human being? Because they do not want to engage in Terry’s sovereign citizen nonsense.

As Mimi pointed out, Terry was playing games

The judge asks if Terry Tussell is in the courtroom. Trussell stands and sez ‘i am here to speak to that matter’. Judge asks ‘are you terry trussell’.  Trussell sez ‘i am a living, breathing, natural man’ or other majik words that didn’t seem to work on the judge?

Thanks to Hoyt recording the audio in court even though he had been told that he could not do so… @5:40

In the rest of the Hoyt recording you can hear more about the Sovcit myths. They were not calling the man, they were calling the legal fiction. ROTFL… And so the Sovcit myth goes on and Terry continues to wonder why his magic words do not work. The upper case Terry was not there, the proper man of God was there… So cute…

The BAR is an English scheme…


4 thoughts on “Hoyt on Trussell

  1. Mr Sov Citizen. I’m here from the state lottery to personally hand you your winning check for $647,836 and – wait a minute – it’s made out to MR SOV CITIZEN that’s not you is it? Sorry to disturb you sir. Goodbye.

  2. I wonder if Hoyt will be sanctioned for the recording since he was apparently instructed not to.

    Do you think the official transcript will include the statement that Trussell made starting with “For the record…”?

    If ANY statements are attributed to Trussell in the record, would that not weaken the Failure to Appear case?

    Is “Failure to Appear” a failure to appear in the courtroom, or is it a failure to follow instructions once one has arrived?

    Obviously what we hear on the recording is very selective. We don’t know if Trussell was actually instructed to approach the bench, for instance.

    I am on of those who are of the opinion that Trussell should be stripped and flogged for willful ignorance and mischief. But that said, the Judge does not come off looking well in my opinion. There is a clear case of contempt of court here. But I wonder at the wisdom of charging failure to appear, when the person did clearly appear in the courtroom. Seems to me the Judge lost his temper and made a bad decision.

    Let us not let our aversion to the Sovereign Idiots lead us to tolerate the actions of petty, hot tempered judicial tyrants either. There are far too many of them in the courtrooms.

  3. I’m guessing the technicalities here but there is a natural justice element of seeing who is accused or giving evidence plus the court being the domain of the judge. You can’t say “I’m here but I’m giving evidence from the back of the court while wearing a paper bag over my head”. There has to be a line somewhere and that line is (for example) the bar in the court. It is likely that if Trussell answered that he was present he would have been asked to come forward. Refusal would also be contempt, I think.

  4. He was asked if he was Terry Trussell and he responded that he was here to address the matter. He was asked again, and he stated that he was a living man. So the judge ignored Terry’s SovCit mutterings and gave him a chance to come forward as Terry Trussell.

    The Judge was not going to allow Terry to play his Sovcit games. The judges are getting quite up to speed with how to properly and quickly deal with people trying to disrupt their courts with such foolishness.

Comments are closed.