FL – State v Trussell – Arraignment transcript

24 thoughts on “FL – State v Trussell – Arraignment transcript

  1. Boy what an idiot and I do mean the judge. Doesn’t every judge know that you honor the letter of the law if not its spirit. Mr. Trussell was present the court room, therefore in the spirit of the law he was present. If fact, he acknowledged he was there. You must also to figure that transcript identifies unidentified speaker. Since that unidentfied speaker we know to be Mr. Trussell, it is impossible for that unidentified speaker to be anyone other than Mr. Trussell.

  2. The judge honored the letter of the law. There isn’t a complex answer to is there a Terry George Trussell in the court. It’s either yes or I’m a lawyer representing him or silence. Anything else is messing with the court. Trussell had five chances to say yes he was present. He chose to play his silly sovereign games instead.
    Further, we only know the unidentified speaker to be likely to be Trussell after the event.

  3. Mr. Trussell was present the court room, therefore in the spirit of the law he was present.

    Which is why Terry was not found in contempt of court or charged with failure to appear. All we know is that an unidentified voice said something and when asked if he was Mr Trussell, the voice responded “I am a sovereign citizen blah blah blah”

    I am not sure as to your ‘logic’ how did we know that since WE know that the speaker was Trussell that therefor the judge or the transcriptionist has to know this?

    Terry tried to go sovcit, and the judge did not let him. I have seen it happen before and invariably justice is served.

  4. Further, we only know the unidentified speaker to be likely to be Trussell after the event.

    Exactly…. Jim needs to work on his logic…

  5. Ever hear of witnesses? If the judge was going to arrest Terry “not appearing”, I think you have had half the court pointing their fingers yelling he’s present. Just because Terry didn’t say the right words to the judge doesn’t mean her “didn’t appear”. This judge is a complete idiot. I can see what Terry would have issued idictments against him. The judge simply does not belong behind the bench. Remember, the court often uses witnesses to identify the defendent in to court room. I think court transcriber was an idiot too and needs to be removed. Certainly “Unknown Speaker” makes no sense what so ever, when defendent has been identified in court.

  6. Does that mean if murderer is on trial, if he keeps completely silent, then trial cannot take place because the accused is “Not in the court room” (remember the accused is silent so there is no way to identify the accused).

  7. Yes. The judge was “technically” correct. Yes. The judge “honored the letter” of the law.

    But does the responsibility of a public official end there? Does anyone whose work involves dealing with the public have any obligation to explain their actions to the public they are dealing with? Is it just impossible for an official person dealing with the public to have a little patience and maybe cut a little slack to people who might not understand exactly is going on? Can they take a few seconds to try to establish the facts and procedures before instantly sending someone to jail? I’m not talking about trying to get Trussell himself to understand, because that was probably impossible. I mean the other members of the public in the courtroom. And people like me.

    And does anyone really believe the Judge did not know he was talking to Trussell? His statement on the record seems like a bald faced lie to me.

    Reading this transcript confirms my impression from the recording. This was an abrupt and arbitrary fit of pique, a judicial temper tantrum. It does not reflect well on the judge or upon the judicial system in the U.S.

  8. Jim Youngblood nothing you have said is relevant or logical. Why does there need to be witnesses to someone saying they are present? Where is the record of “half the court” pointing out Trussell and why should the judge believe them? Your posts seem to be nothing but deliberate ignorance of how a court works.

  9. I like this judge. He’s obviously familiar with Sovereign Citizen games and wasn’t playing.

    Take note, SovCits! They’re on to your shenanigans.

  10. But does the responsibility of a public official end there? Does anyone whose work involves dealing with the public have any obligation to explain their actions to the public they are dealing with?

    Do they?

    Is it just impossible for an official person dealing with the public to have a little patience and maybe cut a little slack to people who might not understand exactly is going on?

    He asked three times if Terry Trussell was in the court room. I believe that Terry did understand what was going on and he had come prepared to go sovcit on the Judge with his ‘third party representation motion’. When the Judge called his bluff, Terry found himself at the short end of the stick.

    Terry lost… Now let’s hope he does not go sovcit on the judge in the preparations for his trial, however his voluntary testimony on a radio show the other day, indicates that he may very well go full out…. So, I predict that the Judge will protect Terry from himself and will assign him a lawyer, preventing Terry from filing a flood of sovcit non-sensical motions.

  11. Ever hear of witnesses? If the judge was going to arrest Terry “not appearing”, I think you have had half the court pointing their fingers yelling he’s present.

    No evidence of such finger pointing and yelling has been shown.

    Sure Jim, all these people are ‘idiots’ for not being willing to play Terry’s games.

    As usual, you have focused on a losing issue… And lack the logic or reason to defend it.

  12. Does that mean if murderer is on trial, if he keeps completely silent, then trial cannot take place because the accused is “Not in the court room” (remember the accused is silent so there is no way to identify the accused).

    You do understand the concept of an arraignment hearing? Oh my Jim…

  13. Take note, SovCits! They’re on to your shenanigans.

    I watched a video in which the judge was faced with a defendant who refused to identify himself as the person, instead invoking similar verbiage to Terry’s. The judge left the court room and the defendant walked out, declaring the case dismissed, it typical sovcit fashion. He was later arrested on a warrant for failing to appear.

    But perhaps Jim does not understand how our legal system works and whether one is a murderer or not, if one is allowed out on bail, then it does not matter what the case is, if you fail to appear, you will be arrested.

  14. These nutballs need to be slammed, harder and harder, until they see the light.

    The judge acted perfectly. The fact that Trussell has on occasion refused to sign papers, for example waiving his right to counsel (as is required to appear pro se), and refused to cross the bar in the courtroom because it would give the court maritime-law jurisdiction over him or some such bilge-water, amply demonstrates that he intentionally refuses to cooperate with well-established court procedures and authority generally.

    It’s as if a batter hit a ball and headed straight for second base. When he is called out, the umpire doesn’t have to show him where the rules give him that authority, or explicitly forbid his running to second base.

    He will be called out, and that’s that.

  15. If it is consistent with the letter of the Law and consistent with the spirit of the Law to treat certain classes of defendants (say for instance, “Sovereigns” or “nutballs”) with special severity and arbitrary abruptness compared to other classes of defendants, then you are entirely correct.

  16. If it is consistent with the letter of the Law and consistent with the spirit of the Law to treat certain classes of defendants (say for instance, “Sovereigns” or “nutballs”) with special severity and arbitrary abruptness compared to other classes of defendants, then you are entirely correct.

    There is a group of people who believe that they can avoid the jurisdiction of the court through foolish arguments. During an arraignment, all the is supposed to happen is the reading of the charges and a plea.

    Some defendants try to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction based on foolish concepts. These ‘theories’ have to place in the court, and there is no reason to try to argue with them.

    In this case, the problem was the Terry came to the court to present himself as a third party representing himself, and his approach failed because the Judge was looking for Terry and the person who said “I am here to address these matters” did not respond to the question “Are you Mr Trussell” other than “I am a living … blah blah”.

    Whether on purpose or accidental, the judge destroyed Terry’s foolish approach. Terry quickly learned that Sovcit approaches are only going to earn you more jail time.

    Terry should also have gotten himself a lawyer, which would have resulted in this situation having been totally avoided.

    Do not blame the judge for Terry’s foolishness. The judge asked, and then asked if the person who responded was Terry Trussell, the person responded through avoidance “I am a living” and the judge cut him off as he was looking for the defendant.

  17. [NBC: Hi John, please post under your own ‘name’ and avoid multiple aliases. I understand why you are reluctant to show yourself so ignorant as to believe in the fringe flag. ]

    After reading the above, it’s easy to see, ignorance is running rampant. So much speculation, little attention to facts. All was not shown on the video because the camera angle only covered the actual courtroom–the area inside the ‘bar’ which represents the railing of the ship The gold-fringed flag signifies the court jurisdiction as Admiralty, Administrative, or Civil Law–not Common Law as specified by our US and FL Constitutions. For those of you not familiar with the difference: anyone ‘appearing’ in an Administrative Law court is presumed guilty unless they can prove themselves not guilty. Further, they have NO Constitutional rights. Welcome to North Korea.

    That is possibly why Trussell was hesitant to enter the ‘bar’. Further, Mr. Trussell could not acknowledge himself to be the ‘person’ called, without verifying the name to be his because all of the court documents had his name spelled wrong and the clerk refused to correct it. To accept a lie as truth is just a bad as telling the lie to begin with. And finally, those who insist on branding Trussell a Sovereign Citizen have no knowledge of his true status. He is no tax protester, or driver license burner. Mr. Trussell took an oath and obeyed the instructions the court gave him. When he encountered public corruption, he reported it (as instructed) to the Court, the Chief Judge, the Clerk of Court, and the County Sheriff. Not one of them even acknowledged his request for help. His LAST RESORT was the People’s Grand Jury under Common Law (RE: US v WILLIAMS, 1992). Once he submitted THE GRAND JURY’s TRUE BILL PRESENTMENT, he had completed his duty.

    The Statutory Grand Jury is a fraud upon the people. Read the statutes. It cannot possibly function to the benefit of the people. It is a tool of the BAR and overzealous prosecutors. Read the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless by presentment or indictment by a grand jury…” Is it any wonder our judicial system is so destructive to our liberty. Whatever happened to the allegations of the State Attorney’s felonies made to law enforcement? Nothing–because those allegations were made against a corrupt public official; they are all above the law, and they protect their own. Wake up. They own us and you haven’t the guts to stand against them as Trussell is doing. If we had thousands more Trussells, and a whole lot fewer NBCs and RoadScholars, perhaps we could restore our rightful Republic.

  18. perhaps we could restore our rightful Republic.

    The “rightful Republic” you claiming to restore never existed. Your entire dribble is made up law that never was. It is nowhere in the Constitution, it is nowhere in the laws of the United States or her several states.

    I am curious, exactly where did you people come up with the whole “fringed flag is admiralty law” theory? Do you even know or are you just repeating what somebody else told you?

  19. By the way, the answer the judge was looking for was “yes.” That’s it. He asked a yes or no question. All Terry had to say was “yes.” Barring that (pun intended) the judge rightly recorded an FTA.

    The heart of SovShittery is this : plain irresponsibility. The heart of responsibility is just what it says: ability to respond. To stand up and be counted. Sovereign Shitheads play an infant’s game of “you think that’s me, but it’s not. It’s a fictional me, so there.”

    Pathetic, irresponsible infants.

  20. the area inside the ‘bar’ which represents the railing of the ship The gold-fringed flag signifies the court jurisdiction as Admiralty,

    Such ignorance. The court is a regular court, not an admiralty court. Such ignorance is what caused Terry to spend 21 days in jail, even before his trial has been concluded…

    No felonies were presented to law enforcement other than the State Attorney hurting Terry’s feelings. Terry should have waited for the Judge to come back but instead escalated all of this and now he is facing real jail time.

    And no the 5th Amendment Grand Jury part does not apply in States, I am sure that anyone familiar with our laws, would have known this by now.

  21. The gold-fringed flag signifies the court jurisdiction as Admiralty, Administrative, or Civil Law–not Common Law as specified by our US and FL Constitutions.

    it signifies no such thing. In heraldry, or in law, and in particular there is no such clause stating that in the US Constitution, and I’m pretty sure in the Florida constitution as well. All it means is that “there’s a pretty gold fringe on it.” Yes, sure one can come up with wonderful conspiracy theories, but that’s all they are, just meaningless babble like most of the sov cit beliefs. It’s like the one where they took a Supreme Court case that said that federal courts should consider and at times be bound by state supreme court decisions, overturning prior precedent, and turned it into their justification for “corporate citizenship.” Yeesh.

  22. The problem is that Sovcit’s understanding of these kind of issues is rather simplistic. Such as “it’s in the Constitution” therefor I have the right in State Courts as well, forgetting that States do have their sovereignty.

    Fascinating

Comments are closed.