FL – State v Trussell – Sovcit filings

Terry has decided to file some documents, even though it is not clear if he has been qualified to proceed ‘pro se’ or is filing through a lawyer. A real lawyer would not likely have been willing to file these documents.

ACTION DATE                            TEXT
11/25/2014                      OBJECTION WITH MOTION TO DISMISS
11/25/2014                      DEMAND FOR QUALIFYING DOCUMENTS-HANKINSON
11/25/2014                      DEMAND FOR QUALIFYING DOCUMENTS-MEGGS
11/25/2014                      OBJECTION-NOT GUILTY PLEA
11/24/2014                      DEMAND FOR BILL OF MORE SPECIFIC PARTICULARS AND
MEMORANDA OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF
11/24/2014                      OBJECTION-DEMAND FOR ACCUSED TO HIRE ATTORNEY

Terry desperately needs a lawyer in order to explain to him the rules. The Judge is protecting Terry’s due process rights to be represented by a lawyer, until a proper hearing has been performed. Terry should have filed a motion for a ‘Faretta’ hearing to determine if he is allowed to be ‘pro se’.

The demand for bill of particulars etc, will be given to Terry once he 1) has a lawyer 2) or he has been allowed to proceed ‘pro se’.

The object to the ‘not guilty’ plea is a strange request. Terry may be objecting to the Judge having entered a ‘not guilty’ plea during the arraignment, since Terry failed to appear with a lawyer and was not properly vetted to proceed ‘pro se’. The Judge again, is protecting Terry’s due process rights.

The demands for qualifying documents is pure ‘sovCit’ and likely involves a request for oath and bond. What a waste of the Court’s time.

As to the ‘object with motion to dismiss’, that motion will not be considered until Terry’s Faretta hearing has been concluded, and it may have to be refiled by a real lawyer, who may not be willing to file it, as it may very well be another SovCit filing.

For a more complete explanation, read Paul Lentz’s posting that the Fogbow