Filing # 40989830 E-Filed 05/03/2016 08:54:59 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. MOTION TO DECLARE FLORIDA STATUTES §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional, both As Applied to Terry George Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness Comes now the Defendant, TERRY GEORGE TRUSSELL, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files the following MOTION TO DISMISS: I. BACKGROUND 1, The defendant, Terry G. (“George”) Trussell (Trussell), is charged in a fourteen-count information alleging violations of F.S. 843,0855(1), (2), (3), & (4) Impersonation, Simulated Legal Process, and Intimidation of Public Officials. (See attached Information, Exhibit A). 2. Trussell was summoned to serve and then elected as duly-appointed and swom foreman of the “Statutory” Dixie County Grand Jury, convened according to Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 1 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness Electronically Filed Dixie Case # 14000201CFAXMX 05/03/2016 08:54:59 AMthe statutory law of the state of Florida and empaneled according to law on April 27, 2014 until removal on August 28, 2014. 3. Subsequently, Defendant Terry George Trussell, served as duly-appointed and swom foreman of the assembly of people who designated themselves the People’s Grand Jury under Common Law in Dixie County, from August 14, 2014 until his resignation on September 4, 2014. This constitutionally allowed designated assembly of individuals, expressed their opinion as a petition for redress in the form of the two documents at issue. This petition for redress was done as a group; of which Terry Trussell was named foreman, and is the subject of this criminal complaint that subjects Terry Trussell to 22 to 70 years in prison, death in prison due to his age of 72s 4. For acting simultaneously, with dual statutory and common law authority, the State of Florida filed its September 2014 information that Terry George Trussell committed fourteen felony level offenses, to wit; that he did, with the intent to defraud, simulate legal process under color of law, harass various public officers, and despite his statutory appointment, approved by Judge and Attomey for the Florida Third Circuit, did somehow “impersonate a public officer.” Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 2 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessMOTION TO DISMISS ALL COUNTS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE STATUTES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THEIR FACE; AND AS. APPLIED Florida Statutes 843.0855 (2),(3) & (4) Violate the First Amendment Petition Clause. This motion had numerous parts, the first being the historical background for informative purposes. HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT 1 THE “COMMON LAW” OF THE CONSTITUTION This motion to dismiss is framed largely in terms of the “common law” or “common sense” of the Constitution. By that is meant, the common understandings of the Constitution and its underlying history and framework as among reasonable citizens who generally understand and revere the Constitution, but are by no means constitutional scholars or legal specialists, nor are they bound in their understanding and application of constitutional principles by the rules and regulations that bind swom state officers. They lack the special purposes of government officers and employees as well as the special training for such specialized purposes. They are in effect, the People the Constitution is designed to protect ... the people the Constitution designed the government to protect. The reason to address this motion in “common law” terms is to overcome the common misunderstandings that arise between the government and the governed that are germane to this case. That is important here because Defendant is charged in his “official” capacity as Foreman of a statutory grand jury and, without distinction, in his common law capacity as “foreman” of an association brought together to petition government for a redress of grievances arising out of defendant’s service as Foreman of the statutory grand jury. That Association to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances is also known as a “Common Law Grand Jury.” Thus, during the relevant period of time, Defendant was Foreman of both a statutory grand jury and a common law grand jury. The prosecutor herein brought 14 felony counts against Defendant for his role before one or both Grand Juries Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 3 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesswhich was for the purpose of and resulted in petitioning government for redress of grievances in the nature of claiming obstruction of the grand jury by each of the “victims”. They in tum, having favored access to the State Attomey filed 14 felony counts against Defendant First Amendment Petitioner Trussell. Government's Creation of an Insular Group Defined as “Enemy of the State”. This translation of legal terms into “common law” (common sense) terms becomes all the more significant because, as incidental to filing charges against Trussell, the “victims” of Trussell’s Petitions and prosecutor undertook to defame him as a “sovereign citizen” which is an official group code characterization designating him as an “enemy of the state”, grouping him with other such enemies as Nazis, Communists, gun rights activists and other allegedly violent enemies that fit a general description of “lawless” persons, associated or not associated, who generally advocate their understanding of our Constitution as against the government's self- serving understanding. Thus has evolved by objective standards two opposed insular groups in fundamental disagreement about the interpretation and application of the same U.S. Constitution. On the one side is organized government which claims exclusive right to interpret and apply the very document that prescribes the legal relationship between government and governed, To do that it has created extra constitutional doctrines like the “Sovereign Immunity” of government (themselves) from accountability to its own people and “judicial supremacy” dictated through “stare decisis” to ensure that official doctrine of government supremacy over the Constitution is enforced and enshrined, while depriving the People’s defense system (Jury and Grand Jury) of legal authority to interpret the black letter law of the land, especially including the Constitution as it is written so that government authority over the Constitution can never be questioned. On the other hand are “sovereign citizens” aka “Non-Governmental Patriots” (NGPs) who insist that the Constitution through rights to trial by jury and grand jury indictment provides the means by which citizens can effectively disagree with the government's interpretation of the law in their jury and grand jury roles. This should in effect allow the people to challenge the government's version of the Constitution and laws made pursuant thereto, on a case by case basis, and those challenges are then fed back through the political system to inform the government, including the judiciary, at all levels, what the people think of government’s interpretation and application of constitutional principle. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 4 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessThus is the heart of the dispute: Government of course wants to make those who disagree with the legality of its usurpation of powers look crazy and unbelievable so it portrays the law as if it and it alone can determine and dictate the correct legal processes which effectively excludes the vast majority of citizens from partaking in the very processes by which the meaning of the Constitution is determined and thus leaving NGPs with an attention commanding question: “How come, in interpreting the document that specifies the role of government and the rights of the people, only government gets to interpret what it says and what it means?” That “legal philosophy” is, as to a constitutionally thinking people such as Defendant, rule by the “Devine Right of Kings” by another state religion called “Judicial Supremacy” over the Constitution, for in terms of law, nothing but blind faith in government justifies that position. To a Candid World, such Faith Government is Absolutely Unjustified: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Beyond arguments arising out of history and the clear language of the Petition Clause itself, the future prospects of governments remaining unaccountable to their own citizens for the injuries they cause in violation rights, is not very persuasive either. On that point The Universal Declaration, Art. 8, states the essence of our Petition Clause, as to all governments: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by constitution or by law. ‘The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) declares the same thing, with a lot more specificity. It too is a treaty of the United States. The ICCPR' Article II, §§ 2, 3 declares: 2, Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations on 12/1666, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977. The Senate by resolution of 4/292, gave its advice and consent to ratification, subject to Reservations, Understandings and Declarations. Instrumeat of Ratification, signed by President George Bush, 6/1/92. Art IL § 3 declares: “That the United States declares that it acceps the competence ofthe Human Rights Committe t receive and consider communications under Art. 41 in which a State Party clams that another State Party is not fulfilling ts obligations under the Coven.” Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 5 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessnecessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.? 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;? (emphasis added) Effective Rights is the Hallmark of Civilization: Notice the words “right to an effective remedy.” What is an “effective remedy” for rights violations if it is not the actual right to sue government for just redress of grievances under law? The argument that the Right of Petition includes the right to use the compulsory process of law against government to redress grievances with it does not depend on any particular idea of the common law or of history. The most important argument of all is the Petition Clause as it is written, and in its context. What else can be meant by those words then that government is accountable under the law for the wrongs that it does to the people. That is a fundamental concept of civilization, as we know it; and as we fervently pray that our emerging civilization will become. Thus, it is not so much that the alleged enemies of the state “sovereign citizens” and non-governmental patriots have insulated themselves from the government, but that the government has insulated itself from lawful civilized accountability under the > In the present context, the emphasized clauses obligate the United States Judiciary to fre the Constitution's cttion clause to do its work by undoing the assumption of sovereign immunity. The Covenant is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land”. and also for is persuasive force in reason. to help understand the nature of our own petition clause, tha itis @ lew of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely asa basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was ess compelling when our founding fathers brought the thirteen colonies together under one constitution? “The International Covenant’ preamble sates the purpose of effective judicial remedies notwithstanding the violation is committed by persons acting in official capacity, as follows: "Recognizing that. in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the idcal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are ereated whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic. social and cultural rights." A condition necessary for enjoyment of rights is ‘compulsory process of law to protect those rights and o obtain just redress for their violation. ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 6 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessConstitution, to the people; and the “sovereigns” and other NGPs have good cause to object ... loudly. THE COMPELLING FORCE BEHIND THE RIGHT TO PETITION Who will safeguard our freedoms and keep us safe from Government Officers who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, but instead, betray and defy it? The people, those innocuous multitudes referred to in the Preamble to the Constitution; the “We the People of the United States” who “for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution” are the constitutional beneficiaries upon whom ultimately the duty to defend the Constitution against government usurpation depends. Defendant is a member of that class of beneficiaries. He brings this motion challenging the constitutionality of the above stated statutes in the interests of the common people, as well as his own. Notwithstanding that government claims to represent the “People”, in this challenge Defendant represents the People against government defiance of the Constitution. That is the power of the People’s Right to Petition Government for Redress of Constitutional Grievances through the Compulsory Processes of the Law. Each citizen as a matter of right and duty has lawful power to bring a rebellious government back into compliance with the Constitution by and through the compulsory processes of law. Preserving that power should be a matter of great ‘American pride. This motion is a Petition to Government to Redress the most serious of grievances: The state government and its officers are in open rebellion against the Constitution of the United States under pretense of their arbitrary will as the law of the land. That fact, or even its allegation gives rise to the question above: Who will defend the Constitution when government defies it? There is but one answer: We the People shall defend our Constitution, lest it go without defense. Our beloved Constitution without defenders? That is intolerable. Come now Defendant Trussell, as a "David against Goliath” averring that he shall defend the Constitution against the very government that it created, as his oath and his honor require. Itis not as if the Constitution does not provide adequate tools for its defense: It does. But government, more concerned with its own perceived needs as against the more Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 7 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessremote needs of the People, has watered down those defenses‘ leaving only commands that demand government’s attention when it is in egregious error. The most important command that should impress government at all levels is The Oath each government official took pursuant to Article VI, Cl. 3, “to support this Constitution”. The most profound description of the duty to support the Constitution notwithstanding that other officers may fail to do so was made by Judge Liddle in Wuebker v. Bowles, 58 N.Y .S.2d 671 (1944). On what the Oath requires of a Judge, his opinion is one of only two cited in the US Code; Art. VI, § 3, U.S.C.A. "Under the Constitutional requirement that all ... judicial officers of the several states shall take an oath to support the Constitution, the Constitution, alone, as it is written, is the sole test, and the support of an act of Congress or any law promulgated by any other federal official or any court decision, is not required." That is the U.S.C.A. citation. Judge Liddle’s description of the oath goes on in Wuebker: “Only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance (not in violation thereof) are declared to be the supreme law of the land. Decisions of the [Supreme] Court are not included as any part of the supreme law of the land. That Court may support the Constitution, as its oath requires, or it may fail to do so, but it cannot change it. Under Article 6, only the Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are binding on this court." Judge Liddle was a sworn judge. How does his understanding of The Oath apply to Defendant Trussell? It may surprise judges to learn that The Oath is as binding on the People as it is on judicial officers. Defendant Trussell took The Oath when he joined the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. His oath not only has the meaning of its words and his understanding of the Constitution he is sworn to support, but it has the added meaning of having put his life and honor on the line in performance “There are many ways government has watered down constitutional protections; the rights of grand juries at issue in this case is just one of them. But ofthe many, one usurpation stands out above all others: The ereation of government immunity; official immunity: judicial immunity; prosecutorial immunity; qualified immunity and the extension of Eleventh Amendment immunity to where it cannot lawfully go. The very idea of government immunity to violate the Constitution defeats the Constitution in every way that immunity might apply; and as immunity from the Constitution ‘becomes impunity to the Constitution, that is a complete defeat ofthe Constitution. See "How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition”. 31 UWLA Law Rev.257 for a case by case analysis from 1791 to 2000, Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 8 both as applied to Terty Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessof The Oath in combat. Whether in hindsight we agree with that war or not, the commitment to his oath in the face of the enemy and death can never be undone. The personal meaning and binding force of The Oath does not end with the end of service. The Oath is taken in a ceremony, but we have no ceremony to end its personal meaning and binding force. Beyond that, the Oath is as binding on a citizen as it is on an officer, even if that citizen never took the oath in ceremony. How do we know that? An alien appears before the court and takes The Oath, and that act transforms the alien into a citizen who is now privileged and duty bound to support “This Constitution”. No one would suggest that a naturalized citizen owes more of a duty or is more privileged to support the Constitution than a natural born citizen, would they? The citizenship duty and privilege to support The Constitution as its needs be, are the same as the duty and privilege conferred by The Oath and no less binding on the citizen than on government officers. Thus, the law preserves the ultimate right and duty of our people to support the Constitution even though, and especially when its sworn officers fail to support it, through its commands as per the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances of the First Amendment and the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.’ When the government defies the Constitution, The Oath and citizenship duty converts those rights into commands to exercise those rights in support of the Constitution, as written for common citizens. The United States Supreme Court described the nature of compulsory process: The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society, it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. Thus, in evaluating the Constitutionality of the Statutes below, this court must consider not only that the Petitions are, on their face, communications of grievances with the government to the government, but the circumstances under which they are made, and by and to groups that perceive each other as insulated from the law and unable to communicate rationally about the law the law as each understands it from * There are other built in defenses of the Constitution against government usurpation, like the people’s rights to jury and grand jury, the Ninth and Tenth Amendment reservations of powers clauses, and ultimately as a constant reminder of for whom the Constitution stands, the inviolate right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. The “common law” grand jury isa militia, armed with only the Constitution and black letter law of the land. “chambers, Batimre & OFioRR, 207 US. 14,14 (1907) Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 9 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesstheir own perspectives. Add to that the knowledge that the goverment systematically interprets the Supreme Law of the Land as best suited to its governing processes in dereliction of its duty to give the Constitution a reasonably balanced interpretation for the People’s side of the Constitution for over 225 years. Given that reality, who can blame NGPs for becoming a little impatient with government impunity to the common sense of the Constitution and act as the insular individuals in search of just law, that government has forced them, the “We the People” of our Constitution's Preamble, to become. 1 THE RIGHT OF PETITION IS DESIGNED TO BRING THE HARSH REALITIES OF LAW TO GOVERNMENT’S ATTENTION History of the Right to Petition ‘And so it came to pass that the King said unto the People: Now hear ye, hear ye: We are sovereign and we control you, the people, by law, by fiat and by whim, as we please; and don’t you forget that. You do not control or influence us by demand or by law; for we have immunity from that nonsense. Whereupon, the people took up scythes and pitch forks; and the Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances and Just Response therefore, was born. The right of petition took its rise from the modest provision made for it in chapter 61 of the Magna Carta (1215). Const. of USA, Analysis & Interpretation, 2012, p. 1355. The Magna Carta, Chapter 61: (The italicized provision is not at all “modest”.) “Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we [...] or any one of our officers shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 10 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessor shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offence be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us [...] and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression [...] within forty days, reckoning from the time that it has been intimated to us [...], the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations toward us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid {...}." The italics above relate to this case: Defendant Trussell is being criminally prosecuted for petitioning government for redress of grievances, to wit: Government's interference with Defendant’s discharge of grand jury duties. The Bold Italics reflects the obligation of the government in this case. The prosecution of Defendant Trussell for what is after all, a common law, common sense Petition to Government for redress of grievances with government functionaries interfering with the operation of the Magna Carta, Chapter 61 in action. His defense is a plea to government to bring its functionaries under control of the common sense law of this land arising out of First Amendment unabridgment of its Petition Clause. That job of forcing the unwilling to help petitioners obtain just redress is the government's job, and when the government as here, refuses to do that, the people are justified, both legally and morally, in “molesting us” (government) in every way possible. That is the Power of the Right of Petition. The rest of Chapter 61 guarantees thatthe King and his hers shall never interfere withthe petitioning processor punish oF intimidate anyone for assisting the barons to coerce just redress from the goverament. We, the People ofthe United States are the heirs of tht guarantce by reason of the First Amendment Petition Clause. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional TT both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessTo require ot suggest that a petition to government for a redress of grievances must be made according to a government established process, policy or form, is a contradiction in terms. “To this meager beginning are traceable, in some measure, Parliament itself and its procedures for the enactment of legislation, the equity jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and proceedings against the Crown by “petition of right.” Thus, while the King summoned Parliament for the purpose of supply, the latter but especially the House of Commons petitioned the King for a redress of grievances as its price for meeting the financial needs of the Monarch, and as it increased in importance, it came to claim the right to dictate the form of the King’s reply, until, in 1414, Commons declared itself to be “as well assenters as petitioners.” Two hundred and fifty years later, in 1669, Commons further resolved that every commoner in England possessed “the inherent right to prepare and present petitions” to it “in case of grievance,” and of Commons “to receive the same” and judge whether they were “fit” to be received. Finally Chapter 5 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 asserted the right of the subjects to petition the King and “all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning to be illegal. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 98. (1934) “Historically, therefore, the right of petition is the primary right, the right peaceably to assemble a subordinate and instrumental right as if the First Amendment read: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in order to “petition the government.” United States v Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 552, (1876) reflects this view. Today, however, the right of peaceable assembly is, in the language of the Court, “cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. ... it is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice that lie at the base of all civil and political institutions—principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of the due process clause. ... The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The question ... is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purpose; not as to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.” DeJonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937) See also Herndon v Lowry 301 U.S. 242 (1937). Furthermore, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for a “redress of grievances” in any accurate meaning of those words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interests and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 2 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesson politically contentious matters. See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961). The right extends to the “approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature and arms of the executive) and to the courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right of access to the court is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.” California Motor Transport Co. v Truckin; Unlimited, 404 US 510 (1972); See also NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. 458 US 886, 913-915 (1982).” (Const. of USA, (2012), P. 1355-56) (The bold italics above refer to prosecution of Defendant Trussell for assisting as foremen in conducting grand jury meetings.) Present View of the Right of Petition “Later cases tend to merge the rights of assembly and petition into the speech and press clauses, and, indeed, all four rights may well be considered as elements of an inclusive right to freedom of expression. While certain conduct may still be denominated as either petition (E.g. BE & K Construction Co, v NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002)) or assembly (E.g. Coates v City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, (1972)) rather than speech, there seems little question that similar standards will be applied in most cases. (Borough of Duryea, Penn, v Guarnieri, 564 U.S. ___, (2011)) For instance, where a public employee sues a government employer under the First Amendment's Speech Clause, the employee must show that he or she spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concen. In Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania v. Guarnieri, the Court similarly held that a police chief who alleged retaliation for having filed a union grievance challenging his termination was not protected by the right to petition, because his complaints did not go to matters of public concern. The Borough of Duryea, case supra, will be discussed infra to illustrate why the prosecutor alleged that Defendant acted as Foreman of the Grand Jury, an official or employee of government. That was to bring Defendant’s ambiguously alleged petitioning conduct into the ambit of Borough where, as a government officer complaining about conditions of employment, his complaint does not rise to Petition Clause levels. However, their duplicitous ploy exposes the unconstitutionality of the statute on its face, as well as applied. A grand juror is not a government employee or officer, and the foreman is just a grand juror elected by other grand jurors to Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 13 ‘both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesspreside and is not identified as an officer or employee by any law or rule of regularity. His petition is obviously a petition concerning matters of public interest. Wherefore, the “Harsh Reality of the Law of Petition” is that it is NOT a prayer for redress, but a demand with consequences if government does not act promptly and justly on such a petition, That is the lesson of the italicized part of Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta, supra. But that lesson is repeated in our own history: The Declaration of Independence, and the American Revolution that followed, was the result of King George III's refusal to justly address previous petitions. After listing thirty unanswered grievances, the Declaration contains the following paragraph: In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. The Consequences of failure to justly respond to a petition for redress? In the common sense of petitioning government for redress of grievances, it makes good sense to give the government notice of the grievances, as the Founders did before declaring national independence. A notice filed “of record” that can be referred to later, is important for any of several different reasons: To refer the sheriff to it for investigation; to refer the next grand jury to it for investigation. ...; to refer the news media to it for public exposure of misconduct in office; or to inspire the subjects of the petition to lawfully remove it ... by court order which means a court hearing on the merits of the filed petition; or in a lawless environment, to inspire the lawless subjects to violate laws, including conspiracy laws, to remove it without due process; which may in fact have occurred. And there is a petition purpose for that too, to raise the right of petition and its subject matter (government interference with grand jury operations) to more visible and effective levels of respect by govemment functionaries for grand juries and their operations; and openly affirm the right and duty of citizens to petition for redress of wrongs done by government to citizens sitting in their jury or grand jury capacities; or any wrong at all. The Options: Florida Law does not address citizen’s rights to arrest for crimes, except where the matter is “stands charged before a court” (F.L 931.14). Therefore the common law right of citizens to arrest for felony committed in their presence without a warrant is the law of Florida. However, as this court plainly knows, any attempt to peacefully arrest the functionaries responsible for obstruction of the grand Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 14 ‘both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessjury and vindictive malicious criminal prosecution will be met by forceful escape from arrest and for any attempt to use force to accomplish an arrest, Defendant will be killed. The only other realistic options are to tum to the state grand jury, the federal grand jury and US Attorney, or ultimately, to hold the escaped functionaries and the government that supports them, up to public scom and ridicule for having tumed the people’s right to petition into a “criminal enterprise” by state declared “enemies of the state.” Ti THE OUTLAWED PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FOR GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN GRAND JURY PROCESSES Void for Vagueness Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 (1983). Holding: A Cal. Statute requiring a person on a Terry stop to have credible and reliable id. is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Case goes into detail on vagueness criteria. mW THE GOVERNMENT OUTLAWED PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FOR GOVERNMENT’S INTERFERENCE IN GRAND JURY PROCESSES ARE PROTECTED BY THE PETITION CLAUSE “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” Voltaire, (1694-1778) By its nature and history, the Right of Petition is designed to compel government to do right when it is wrong and to redress that wrong. That is, by its nature the Petition Clause comprehends that the government agency being petitioned is intrinsically hostile to both the Petition and that for which it stands, the right of the people to compel government agencies to obey the law. Likewise, grand juries are meaningless unless its design comprehends that its fundamental social and political value is in its adversity to government when its agency is outside the law as the ‘common people; the “We the People” understand the law to be: For what is the sense of law if not understood by the common people, a fortiori for Constitutional Law. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 15 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness“True Bills:” Exhibits 2 and 3, are two “True Bills” each bearing “filed dates” of 2014 August 15, at 4:31 PM. Defendant does allege that they are not in fact “filed” but they were delivered to the clerk and the clerk placed the stamps thereon. They are distinguished by an Inst. No. on the right upper corner. Exh. A bears “Inst. 201415006345”, (6345 herein) and Exh, B bears “Inst. 201415006246” (6246 herein). Both have a heading of “True Bill” and both identify the “authority” under which made as “The People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law in Dixie County, Florida”. That is a “Common Law” Association as opposed to a “statutory Grand Jury”, but the government has nowhere declared a law that Common Law “grand jury” associations cannot exist, not that they cannot function as regular grand juries, albeit, the government may, or may not pay special attention to them and their recommendations. Prior courts have considered items similar as “Advisory” or akin to a “mediator's report.” See the documents produced via a 119 request and the Senate history: the e-mail chain includes an e-mailed (filed under a Notice of Filing under separate cover) wherein Victoria Avalon, State Attorney in the 10" Circuit, described a loss in a criminal matter and the Judge’s description decision. The two petitions for redress are distinguished in substance as follows: Exhibit | identifies several people and corporation, on one crime of bribery resulting in 30 counts all of which have to do with the school boards mistreatment of children and families. We don’t know what the People’s grand jury’s reasoning was, but we do know on its face, that the document is a writing that petitions government for redress of grievances of a public nature; and we know that petitioning foreman is not an official of government, but one of many citizens who is rightly or wrongly, peacefully petitioning government for redress on matters of public concen. That is exactly the kind of Petition that the United States Supreme Court determined is entitled to Petition Clause Protection, in Borough of Duryea, Penn, Et al v Guarnieri, 131 8.Ct. 2488 (2011) Exhibit 2 is distinguished in that it recommends arrest and prosecution of only one person, “Jeffery A. Siegmeister acting under color of law, but actually acting in his personal capacity.” It alleges two crimes, “Obstruction of Justice” and “Tampering with the Grand Jury” which term is used in contradistinction to the “People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law”. Again it is clear on its face that it advocates arrest and prosecution, a due process of law and is not itself nor likely to cause an imminent danger to the health and safety of anyone, including Siegmeister, because the Sheriff Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 16 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesswill himself have to be convinced that there really is “Probable Cause” to arrest. In this case, the Sheriff clearly did not arrest anyone, except Trussell. The Borough's Court addressed the question of whether a chief of police’ claim of retaliation for filing a union grievance against the city council arising out of his employment was protected by the Petition Clause. The Court held that it was not protected by the Clause in the employment context. In so doing it distinguished between Petition Clause protected and not protected, albeit, not protected by the Petition Clause does not deny other First Amendment, legal or contract protections. Borough’s held, in the public employment context, a government employee petition for redress is not entitled to Petition Clause protection unless it concerns a matter of public interest or concer. Its holding is simply reiterated at the end of Part II, 131 S.Ct. 2501: “The right of a public employee under the Petition Clause is a right to participate as a citizen, through petitioning activity, in the democratic process. It is not a right to transform everyday employment disputes into matters for constitutional litigation in the federal courts.” That holding does not affect the common sense rendition of its meaning as described in parts I and Il. Actually, the Borough’s Court pretty much affirms Defendant's common sense understanding with case citations: The primary purpose of the Petition Clause is to protect a citizen’s right to petition a hostile government for redress of public concerned grievances. The problem that emerges is that the prosecutor has perverted his legal ingenuity to try to draw Trussell’s acts to fall under Borough's so that the false application of terms imply that the conduct alleged falls outside of Petition Clause protection, while the true facts that appear on the face of Exhibits | and 2 place the conduct in the main stream of Petition Clause protection. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes $§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 7 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessThe Statutes on Which the Accusations Against Trussell Depen¢ There are 14 Counts. Counts I and Il are alleged under F.S. §843.0855 (2). Counts Ill and IV are alleged under F.S. §843.0855 (3). Counts V through XIV all are alleged under F.S. §843.0855 (4). The 14 Count Information filed 2014 September 19 is Exhibit 1. F.S. §843.0855 which contains the above said subsections 2, 3, & 4; and (5) related to defenses or exclusions from the intent of the statute is Exhibit 4, attached. FS. §817.535 is referred to define “legal process”, “Person” and “public officer or employee” in F.S. §843.0855 (2) & (4). Counts I and II are both in the form that: Defendant did, (on date) unlawfully and deliberately impersonate or falsely act as a foreperson of a grand jury, a public officer or employee, in connection with or relating to the filing of a True Bill against (Name), a legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise took any action under color of law against persons or property, contrary to Section §843.0855(2), Florida Statutes. Section §843,0855 as relevant to Counts I and II is as follows: §843.0855 Criminal actions under color of law or through use of simulated legal process — (1) Asused in this section: (a) The term “legal process” means a document or order issued by a court or filed or recorded with an official court of this state or the United States or with any official governmental entity of this state or the United States for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction or representing a claim against a person or property, or for the purpose of directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. “Legal process” includes, but is not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order. (b) The term “person” means an individual, public or private group incorporated or otherwise, legitimate or illegitimate legal tribunal or entity, informal organization, official or unofficial agency or body, or any assemblage of individuals. ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 18 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness(©)__ The term “public officer or employee” has the same meaning provided in §817.535. (2) A person who deliberately impersonates or falsely acts as a public officer or employee in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775,083, or s. 775,084. It is the intent of the Legislature that this section applies if a person acts as an officer or employee purporting to supersede or override any legislation or statute of this state, or to supersede or override any action of any court of this state. The definition of “legal process” in the statute is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and uncertain as to its temporal meaning in time. When the first part of the definition is closely narrowly construed, as it must be in a criminal case intending to make a crime out of a Petition Clause document, it means an existing document as ordered by a court or filed with a court or filed any official government entity. It does not mean a document created by a citizen in the nature of a petition to government for redress of grievances with government that is to be and then is filed, because if it did, that would subject any civil rights case filed in a federal court in Florida to state criminal analysis of whether that filing in federal court is a state crime; and that analysis would be by the very persons or agencies that the federal civil rights complaint is made. Further, in this matter, the two documents are in fact not ‘filed’ or ‘recorded’ and are therefore not a ‘legal process’ by definition. See deposition of Dana Johnson, Clerk of Court. How else do we know that? The intent of the statute is stated in the statute. That intent applies the statute if a person acts as a public officer or employee purporting to supersede or override any legislation or court action. That raises two questions First, does the statute apply to citizens who are not officers or employees of government at all? Second, “document” is a broad term obviously including written Petitions for Redress; could that possibly be so broad as to include a federal civil complaint or a complaint to the sheriff for investigation? Overbreadth: Yes, it does exactly that when you read the rest of the definition: ““Legal process” includes, but is not limited to, a summons, lien, comp! warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order.” A federal civil rights complaint is subject to state analysis under this definition, as is a complaint to the sheriff, the legislature, and even this or any other motion to this court can be Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 19 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesssubject to criminal analysis by the very people prosecuting Trussell. Worse, look at the definition of “person”. It includes attorneys who are chilled from filing motions; and it includes the Judge, if an order based upon what a prosecutor believes is a false interpretation of law or fact intentionally made. It could include a subpoena issued with the wrong case number, or filing a discovery request too early in a litigation in a civil matter. It can include any most any document an attorney normally creates. In this case, it would possibly include the ‘Sheriff's Warrant’ that was testified to as being ‘not a normal warrant’; or the “Probable Cause Affidavit and Order” which does not designate if probable cause is ‘found/not found’ with a corrective date that was never addressed nor met; the filed/unfiled or recorded/not recorded or ‘blue’ private file, where the two relevant documents lay as unofficial private grand jury documents; or the shredding of an official grand jury document. See depositions transcripts and the documents mentioned. The definition of “public officer or employee” is overly broad as found in FS §517.535(1)(e): §817.535 Unlawful filing of false documents or records against real or personal property.— (1) As used in this section, the term: (a) ... (d) (e) “Public officer or employee” means, but is not limited to: 1. A person elected or appointed to a local, state, or federal office, including any person serving on an advisory body, board, commission, committee, council, or authority. 2. An employee of a state, county, municipal, political subdivision, school district, educational institution, or special district agency or entity, including judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, deputy clerks of court, and marshals. 3. A state or federal executive, legislative, or judicial officer, employee, or volunteer authorized to perform actions or services for any state or federal executive, legislative, or judicial office, or agency. 4, A person who acts as a general or special magistrate, auditor, arbitrator, umpire, referee, hearing officer, or consultant to any state or local governmental entity. 5. A person who is a candidate for public office or judicial position. ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0858(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 20 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessNotice what “but is not limited to” does. No one can know that he is not included in the persons subject to the “crime” of filing papers a state attorney thinks might be false. There is not even a separation of powers. This statute includes judges, federal and state executives and legislators; and it includes all attorneys; if the prosecutor should think there is something misleading in any pleading or other filed documents in any case. As inclusive as all of the specifications are, conspicuous by its absence is “a juror or grand juror or the foreman thereof.” So, such must either be intentionally not included, or within the broad sweeping language of “but is not limited to.” ‘That requires pure speculation. By examining the CI and see what it says. ing Statute: Take th it_of for simplicit (2) A person who falsely acts (makes a mistake) as a public officer or employee (judge or attorney) takes any action under color of law against persons or property (that is what judges and attomeys do) commits a felony of the third degree,... Notice: “falsely acts” is a vague term that does not necessarily impute criminal or specific intent, which is also what the prosecutor in this cause believes — that it is a general intent statute. This also makes this statute unconstitutional. What is “falsely acts” if it cannot be whatever a biased prosecutor, thinks is a mistake and might be an intentional “mistake” of law or fact in an adversary system. Any judge and attomey could be subject to arrest, inquisition and investigation, and prosecuted with the whole statute with all of its disjuncts going to the jury for them to pick through and come up with the simple version set out in the above paragraph. With so many options, how can the jury fail to find that a document exists in a private ‘blue’ file which somehow bad mouths a purported public official by a grand juror. Albeit that is not a crime; even if the prosecutor attempts to paint it as a Rembrandt. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §5843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional au both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessBut to be fair, this crime has statutory limitations expressed in sub section (5), (a)- (©: (5)(a) This section does not make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer or legal tribunal which is performed under lawfal authority. (b) This section does not prohibit individuals from assembling freely fo 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. (a) May excludes mistakes of this court. But it does not exclude mistakes by attomeys or the Court, if the prosecutor says it doesn’t, and files his/her own simulated legal process. b) This section excludes free assembly to discuss petitioning, but includes any act of petitioning thereon that is not in accordance with pre-existing rules which by itself chills the petitioning process. This is an unconstitutional vague defense as phrased. (c) This section has a similar problem to those discussed above: “Lawful and legitimate” access, “instituting legitimate and lawful legal process” begs the question of what is “reasonably lawful access” and what is “reasonably lawful response” to “legitimate and lawful legal process”; and who is to decide? The begging of the question is that the actor has to determine in advance what the prosecutor will think is reasonably lawful, before he may file a petition. In cases most important to the substance of the Petition Clause, the prosecutor is biased to believe the worst about the petitioner and the best about the government that he serves; or at least act that way, as he did in this case, by making the defendant out to be a “sovereign citizen” and as such, an “enemy of the state” which the judges and all state officers should gang up against. The issue is not who will win at trial. This court knows who automatically wins and who automatically loses by the prosecution itself, That is what is meant by the “chilling effect” on First Amendment speech, press and petitions to government for a redress of grievances. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §5843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 2 ‘both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessPresently, Petitioner/Defendant is 72 years old. By the time he gets to file his petition “lawfully” he will be over 94 years old, and if the prosecutor gets his way, he will by upwards of 142 before he gets a chance to do it again, lawfully or not. That is “Chilling” the First Amendment practice. Wherefore, F.S. §843.0855 is unconstitutional on its face, and as applied, on the following five counts in that its definitions are stated with all-inclusive overly broad clauses, to wit: 1. Take away the disjunctives and “legal process” is a document ... filed ... with any official government entity for the purpose of ... directing a person ... to refrain from performing a specified act. “Legal process includes but is not limited to a . complaint, notice, pleading ...” (Like a letter to the Sheriff, “stop snooping into my house.” A “legal Process” is therefore virtually any writing that is a petition to government for redress of grievances demanding that government do or refrain from doing any specified act. 2. The term “public officer or employee” is defined as including a whole host of persons, which do not include “juror or grand juror or the foreman thereof” but includes a catchall clause “but is not limited to” which requires Defendant and others similarly situated to speculate as to whether they are included or intentionally eliminated because of special immunities that attach to jurors and grand jurors regarding the performance of their functions and their role as citizens. 3, When the disjunctives are eliminated from the charging statute it reads: “A person who ... falsely acts ... under color of law against persons or property commits a felony” without any definition of the key phrase “falsely acts” which then makes the entire charging law so vague and ambiguous so as to include for anyone doing any “false act” under color of law, and in this case, under color of “common law”, and possibly includes a petition to government to redress grievances with government where prosecutors may be so biased so as to ignore actual fundamental truth in the act and purpose of the act. 4, The charging statute on Counts I and II is designed to reach Petitions for Redress, and that is a real problem. It is designed to defeat First Amendment protections, like a “prior restraint”. The simple fact is that a petition of the nature filed herein can’t Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 23 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessbe determined to be frivolous or false, intentionally or just as a matter of disagreement until it has a full hearing on the merits of the petition itself, which of course, this law and this application is intended to not just chill, but to preclude. That is the very heart of the doctrine of “Prior Restraint”. 5. “Make it a crime to complain so that we don’t have to hear the complaint” is not exactly a “prior restraint” which basically goes to licensing of the press so as to censor the press before publication. But it achieves the same end, and the Supreme Court long ago recognized that “the special vice of a prior restraint is that a communication will be suppressed ... before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment.” Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390(1972). That is the instant case. A conceptually related rule had already emerged related to statutes that criminalized speech or press because that would lead to self-censorship which would not be relieved by permitting a defense of truth. “Under such a rule would-be critics of official conduct would be deterred from voicing their criticism even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved true in court or fear of the expense of having to do so ... The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 267 (1964). Generally, where the reason is the same, the rule should be the same. This case is a Petition Clause case from Defendant's perspective; but from the government’s perspective it is a speech case wherein the prosecutor seeks to punish Trussell for publically (or privately per the facts of this case) publishing a complaint to the government alleging that officials committed crimes of bribery in the management of the County Educational System, and the crimes of obstruction of justice and tampering with the grand jury. In Borough of Duryea, Penn. V Guarnieri, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 2494-95 (2011) the Court observed: “It is not necessary to say that the two clauses are identical in their mandate or their purpose and effect to acknowledge that the rights of speech and petition share substantial common ground. This Court has said that the right to speak and the right to petition are “cognate rights.” (Citations Omitted) It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 24 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesspeaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances” (Citation Omitted) Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes and concerns to their government and to their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speed and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of grievances.” “Courts should not presume that there is always an essential equivalence in the two Clauses or that speech clause precedents necessarily and in every case resolve Petition Clause claims. ... Interpretation of the Petition Clause must be guided by the objectives and aspirations that underlie the right. A petition conveys the special concerns of its author to the government and, in its usual form, requests action by the government to address those concerns. (Cite Omitted)” Thus, the Statute violates the First Amendment Petition (and speech) on each of the 14 counts (5 specifically) and must be held to be unconstitutional on its face, as well as how it is applied. ‘The statute is unconstitutional as applied: The prosecutor uses semantic slights of hand to create the appearance of falsity in the “True Bill”, In fact, Defendant was the foreman of the statutory grand jury. But that is not the “official capacity” in which the “True Bills” were made and presented to the clerk. They say what they are on their face: True Bills of “The People’s Grand Jury under common law”; and they identify Trussell as in the capacity of the foreman of the People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law. Thus, there is no “falsely acts” on that score, and there is no question but that he acted as a citizen, not as a government official. Did he act under color of law? Of course he did as phrased in the First Amendment; but not a used in this case. He acted under color of the Petition Clause as a right of citizens, and that is not usually considered as an element of a crime. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §5843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 25 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessThus, the plain face of the documents Trussell is alleged to have criminally filed, demonstrate that the acts complained of are First Amendment protected and the prosecutor misrepresented Trussell’s status as an officer or employee when the face of the document shows he acted as a citizen But the important fact is that it doesn’t really matter if Defendant was foreman of the statutory grand jury submitting a True Bill as its foreman, or whether he did that as a member of a People’s Grand Jury foreman. The simple fact is that the latter is an association formed to petition government for a redress of grievances and it is as protected by the First Amendment as a statutory grand jury is by law for peaceably submitting such a petition to the government. Iv THE STATUTE SUPPORTING COUNTS II & IV ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, AND AS APPLIED In part III supra F.S. §843.0855 (2) was shown to be unconstitutional on its face, and as applied to Counts I and II. In this part F.S. §843.0855(3) is examined. The legal arguments are basically the same, and reference to and incorporation of the legal arguments from part III are incorporated by the reference. The statute is as follows: (3) A person who simulates legal process, including, but not limited to, actions affecting title to real estate or personal property, indictments, subpoenas, warrants, injunctions, liens, orders, judgments, or any legal documents or proceedings, knowing or having reason to know the contents of any such documents or proceedings or the basis for any action to be fraudulent, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 26 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessBoth counts are in the form that “Defendant (date) did unlawfully simulate legal process, including but not limited to an indictment, warrant, or any other legal proceeding, to wit: a True Bill against (Name), knowing or having reason to know the contents of said document, proceeding or the basis of any such action was fraudulent, contrary to Section §843.0855(3).” The face of the True Bills bear a notary public’s seal attesting to the fact that they are what they purport to be and not simulations of any document. What they purport to be is a First Amendment association called “The People’s Grand Jury Under Common Law” recommendation that certain people be arrested and prosecuted for generally stated crimes. It calls itself a “presentment” and a “True Bill” neither of which, is a specified documents in the statute, but either is included in the broadly stated category of “any legal documents” or is intentionally not included. Which one, is a matter of simple speculation as to whether Trussell’s acts and document fall within the ambit of the statute. A petition to redress grievances with government is a “legal document” and is included in the ambit of “any legal documents” prohibited by the statute, but as a legal fact, such presentment of a petition for redress of grievances is exactly what the Petition Clause anticipates and protects. For that reason, infringement on the First Amendment Petition Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the statute is overly broad and unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 27 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessThe statute is unconstitutional as applied in that the “True Bills” speak for themselves and are not a simulation of any other legal document but one that arises out of and assembly to petition government for redress of grievances as a petition for redress of grievances, a First Amendment protected process, document and presentation to government. Vv THE FLORIDA STATUTE, 843.0855(4) WHICH SUPPORTS COUNTS, 'V-XIV IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED AND ON ITS FACE In part III supra F.S, §843.0855 (2) and (3) were shown to be unconstitutional on its face, and as applied to Counts I and II. In this part F.S. §843.0855(4) is examined. The legal arguments are basically the same as for part III, and reference to and incorporation of the legal arguments from part III are incorporated by the reference herein. The statute, §843.0855(4) is as follows: (4) A person who falsely under color of law attempts in any way to influence, intimidate, harass, retaliate against, or hinder a public officer or employee involving the discharge of his or her official duties by means of, but not limited to, threats of or actual physical abuse or harassment, or through the use of simulated legal process, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.§775.082, s. §775.083, or s. §775.084. Each of the ten counts are of the same form but name different victims, as follows: Defendant on (date) did unlawfully and falsely under color of law attempt in any way to influence, intimidate, harass, retaliate, against, or hinder (Name) a public officer or employee involving the discharge of his official duties by means of, but not limited to threats of actua; physical abuse or harassment or through the use of simulated legal process, contrary to section §843.0855(4). Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 28 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessA thing is what it is, and not what government officials claim it to be for their own convenience in preventing complaints from being filed and pursued against them. On its face the “True Bills” are a complaint of misconduct by persons identified, and on its face it does not allege misconduct in their official capacity, but “in their Private capacity action outside of the law of the land and the findings are as follows:” then listing the thirty specifications of bribery in violation of laws. The same thing is true of the True Bill for Obstruction of Justice: It alleges that “Jeffery A. Siegmeister acting under color of law, but actually acting in his private capacity.” These people may be government officials, but they are not God. They can’t take document clear on its face and make it into something they only imagine or wish that it was. The fact is that government is defending itself and its functionaries by this criminal prosecution. That is an inherent ‘conflict of interest’ by government with equal justice to citizens under the law. That bias perverts the law, the process by information instead of indictment, as well as its appearance; and that violates the due process of the law. The statute is so overly broad that any normally presented petition to government to redress grievances with government functionaries would become a crime if government is allowed to take as much liberty with the construction of the petition as it is doing here. Motion 1o Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 29 ‘both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessThe “True Bills” are on their face, First Amendment petitions by a group of freely assembled and designated people, to their government; there is nothing false or simulated about it. It simply states what the People’s Common Law Grand Jury have found and recommends arrest and prosecution ‘within the jurisdiction of the Sheriff for the crimes for which probable cause. It is a “legal process” and it is such by reason of the First Amendment command that Congress shall not abridge, and by way of the 14% amendment, that States shall not abridge. There is no special “petition form” and this is a necessary consequence of the non -abridgment command. While the “True Bill’s” are the form of submission the People’s Common Law Grand Jury chose, this court has no jurisdiction to criticize that form or specifying another form petitions must take, because that would be abridging the right to petition government for redress, and as the intent of the petitioner, such requirements of form would be arbitrary: The form of a “True Bill” from a common law grand jury announces both the nature of the petition and the nature of citizen consideration that has been given to it. Wherefore, the counts V to XIV should be dismissed because the statute upon which they are based, Fla.Stat, §843.0855, is so over broad that it arbitrarily invades the province of the people’s right to petition government for redress of grievances within the meaning of the First Amendment and is susceptible to arbitrarily criminalize such petitions thereby unreasonably chilling the exercise of First Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 30 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessAmendment Rights. The said statute is unconstitutional as applied, because the prosecutor has warped its plain meaning and the plain meaning of the “True Bills” on which the prosecutor to conjure up illegality where good faith petitions can and do exist. This case began with ‘fraudulent indictments’ ‘recorded’, then became ‘simulated legal process’ located in an unofficial private ‘blue’ folder in a desk drawer, now it is the purported unauthorized reservation of a courtroom to properly freely assemble and express a group opinion of possible public corruption in two unofficial and unfiled documents. See filed depositions for the continuing change of direction, definitions, motives, knowledge and lack thereof, and recanting. Vi. IN REGARD TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FLORIDA STATUTES, §843.0855 AND ITS SUBSECTIONS (1), (2), (3), & (4), ARE AT THE SAME TIME BOTH FACIALLY VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND OVERBROAD, THEY HAVE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AIM AND PURPOSE, THEY ARE PROHIBIT NON-CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO TRUSSELL BECAUSE HIS CONDUCT WAS BOTH NON-CRIMINAL AND IMMUNIZED FROM ALL PROSECUTION EXCEPT FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CHARGED. 1. Trussell contends that F.S. §843.0855 subsections (1), (2), (3), & (4) (as amended effective October 1, 2013) are unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to him because the Statute was enacted with the express purpose of attacking an undefined group of people (“Sovereign Citizens”) for their only vaguely understood and even more vaguely documented commitment to Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 31 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesstraditional “common law” and to upholding the Constitution of the United States under the most miserably undefined and perhaps undefinable concept of “original intent.” 2. As Third Circuit State Attorney Jeffrey Siegmeister has explained, and as is separately argued in Trussell’s Motion to Dismiss for Selective, Politically Motivated Prosecution because Florida Statutes §843.0855 as a whole, as to its component subparts, was (and were) intentionally designed to suppress the “Sovereign Citizens” movement. » . This intention is abundantly documented in the Florida House and Senate legislative history relating to §843.0855 (selections from which are attached as Exhibits B [Florida House] and C [Florida Senate] documents and which is being filed in its complete form under separate cover)(Terry George Trussell incorporates these Exhibits relating to the legislative history of §843.0855 and all other Exhibits to this present Motion by reference and realleges their evidence and arguments a part of this Motion to Declare F.S. §843.0855 Unconstitutional as Applied and Facially as if fully recopied and set forth herein below). 4. State Attorney Jeffrey Siegmeister sought specifically to implement F.S. §843. in this case (which is among the first cases ever to apply §843.0855 at all) precisely for the purpose of suppressing this (very poorly) state-defined Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 32 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesspeaceful political “Sovereign Citizens” movement to which no criminal “gang” or “enterprise” identity can possibly be applied or imputed. 5. Accordingly, the record shows that §843.0855 was promulgated and enacted, and Terry Trussell was prosecuted, to prevent that (for all practical purposes, non-existent but) state-defined group called “the sovereign citizens movement” from assembling to express its ideas at meaningful times and in places and in manners where their message may effectively be conveyed. 6. A statute so designed and so implemented by prosecutions is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional as an infringement on fundamental rights. 7. A recent Florida case regarding statutes designed to prohibit criminal gang recruitment directly covers this point and all applicable law: The First Amendment challenges require us to determine whether section 874.05(1) and/or section 874.11 violates freedom of speech and freedom of association. "At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Comme'ns Comm'n, 512 U.S. 622, 641, 114 S. Ct. 2445, 129 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1994). "To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance." Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24-25, 91 S. Ct. 1780, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1971). That is, the fundamental rights embodied in the First Amendment compel the courts to "protect the freedom to express even 'the thought that we hate." Christian Legal Soc'y Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of Law v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 3000, 177 L. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 33 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessEd. 2d 838 (2010) (Alito, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 654-55, 49 S. Ct. 448, 73 L. Ed. 889 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Enoch v, State, 95 So.3d 344 at 350, (Florida, 1" DCA July 27, 2012). 8. All public speech, symbolic or otherwise, is subject to reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221, 104 S. Ct. 3065 (1984). ° ). Time, place, and manner restrictions "are valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored fo serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." /d. at 293; see also, United States v. O'Brien, 39| U.S. 367, 377, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672, 88 S. Ct. 1673 (1968). 10. The constitutional validity of Florida’s statute §843.0855 as a whole, together with any and all of its first four subsections (1) (2), (3), and (4). therefore depends on whether the regulations comply with these constitutional requirements. 11. Terry George Trussell and his undersigned counsel contend, most emphatically, that both as applied in this case and facially, Florida Statute §843.0855 and its first four subjections utterly fail these tests. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 34 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness12. In the 1980s, politically active college and university students built some cardboard and flimsy plywood shanties (symbolizing news media portrayal of black life under the Afrikaner Nationalist government) protesting South African apartheid in front of and around the storied historical and architectural treasures in front of Massachusetts Hall on Harvard Yard, around the Rotunda at the University of Virginia, on the Old Campus, Cross Campus and Hewitt Quad at Yale and elsewhere at the most visible central places of major universities around the nation. 13, In these well-publicized cases, all efforts to suppress freedom of assembly, symbolic expression, and speech ONLY in the sectors and zones of any given jurisdiction where that message will be most powerfully (i.e. effectively) be heard were disallowed. See, for example, Students against Apartheid Coalition v. O'Neil, 660 F. Supp. 333 (W.D.Va., May 27, 1987), 14, Protests must be allowed in central, highly visible places, precisely because sometimes the medium (the party delivering a speech, because of his role, title, or position, as well as the setting for speech) is the message, and part of the medium is the time, manner, and place of delivery. When prominent University Professors joined their students in the student protests at MIT and Harvard as many did (including Noam Chomsky at MIT, who even spent the night in Shanties with the students, even against administrative orders, the ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0835(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 35 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessMessage was just that much more publicized in the commercial media and therefor politically powerful. 15. Expression of ideas about what a grand jury can and should do are most effectively expressed in a real courthouse by the foreman of a real grand jury, like Terry George Trussell (who might or might not appreciate being compared to Noam Chomsky). 16, And it is a Grand Jury Foreman’s right, power, and duty to make and deliver such expression in the most meaningful and effective time, place, and manner which is the gravamen of the improper application of Florida Statutes §§843.0855 (1), (2), (3), and (4) to Terry George Trussell, because on its face the State Prosecutor, William N. Meggs, has construed the statute to prohibit non-criminal communications related to noncriminal grand jury restructuring and other political activities. See Enoch v, State, supra: 95 So. 3d at 357-58. 17. According to William N. Meggs, the State’s prosecutor in this case, among Terry George Trussell's gravest uncharged crimes is that he stands accused of having wrongly scheduled a meeting of the People’s or Common Law Grand Jury of Dixie County in the Dixie County Courthouse, using his status as Foreman of the Statutory Grand Jury to make this reservation. 18. This is no more significant, however, than a Harvard Professor using his status as a professor to reserve a room at Lamont or Widener Libraries to Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 36 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessdiscuss the Communist Revolution in Cuba, Congo, or the Cape Province of South Africa with a meeting of the Students for Democratic Society (SDS) or the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP)*. 19. Terry George Trussell submits that the Florida Supreme Courts’ instructions and other pronouncements on the role and status of the Statutory Grand Jury as a recognized political entity within the judicial branch of government not only guarantees him immunity from any charge of misconduct arising from his role as Chairman of the (functionally substitute) People’s or Common Law Grand Jury, but mandated that he reform the grand jury process and “do what no one else dared to do”. 20. Whether Trussell took politically or socially adroit or maladroit steps to reform the process does not (or at least it should not) matter at all in terms of whether he merits criminal prosecution in this case. Honest mistakes are not illegal. 21. By analogy to the standards for judicial conduct (and Trussell as a Grand Jury Foreman asserts that Florida law grants him the full equivalent of Absolute * As incongruous as it might seem, the Socialist Workers’ Party was visibly active on the Harvard Campus through at least the 1980s and 1990s, although attended largely by students who belonged to “final clubs” and preferred privately tailored clothes to those available at “commercial ‘mass marketing outlets” like Brooks Brothers or J. Press. When questioned, the elite members of these clubs often explain their solidarity with “the working classes” (members of “the 1%" and lower in the middle classes) by saying that the masses will always needs and require elite guidance, Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 37 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessJudicial Immunity), at no time did Trussell act in the complete absence of jurisdiction 22. His conduct was immunized by statute and custom, and he believed he was required to take the actions he did. 23. The present motion thus seeks merely to establish the ways in which the statute itself is not only facially void for vagueness but also is overbroad, in that it imposes impermissible limitations on legal expressive and associative activities at the same time that it is so vaguely worded as to permit abusive prosecutors, such as Jeffery Siegmeister and William Meggs in this case, to selectively use this statute to prosecute not merely innocent but statutorily immunized behavior. 24, Whether the statute is unconstitutional “on its face” depends on an analysis of the legislature’s language taken in context of legislative history and purpose, and (as noted above) especially whether it criminalizes non-violent, non-criminal conduct by lumping it together with potentially (but not always or inherently) criminal conduct: B, Florida Statutes, §843.0855(1)-(5) DEFINE CRIMINAL ACTIONS UNDER COLOR OF LAW OR THROUGH USE OF SIMULATED LEGAL PROCESS WITHOUT DEFINITION OF TERMS— (1) As used in this section: (a) The term “legal process” means a document or order issued by a court or filed or recorded Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 38 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenesswith an official court of this state or the United States or with any official governmental entity of this state or the United States for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction or representing a claim against a person or property, or for the purpose of directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. “Legal process” includes, but is not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order. (b) The term “person” means an individual, public or private group incorporated or otherwise, legitimate or illegitimate legal tribunal or entity, informal organization, official or unofficial agency or body, or any assemblage of individuals. (c) The term “public officer or employee” has the same meaning as provided in §817.535. (2) A person who deliberately impersonates or falsely acts as a public officer or employee in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in §775.082°, §775.083', or §775.084!!, It is the intent of the Legislature that this section applies if a person acts as an officer or employee purporting to supersede or override any legislation or statute of this state, or to supersede or override any action of any court of this state. (3) A person who simulates legal process, including, but not limited to, actions affecting title to real estate or personal property, indictments, subpoenas, warrants, injunctions, liens, orders, judgments, or any legal documents or proceedings, knowing or having reason to know the contents of any such documents or proceedings or the basis for any action to be fraudulent, commits a ° Basic statute on penalties, sentencing structures, mandatory minimums, ete, 10 Relating to Fines as optional punishments in addition to jail terms as penalties. 11 Relating to “Violent Career Criminals, habitual felony offenders, and habitual violent. felony offenders.” Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessfelony of the third degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084. (4) Aperson who falsely under color of law attempts in any way to influence, intimidate, harass, retaliate against, or hinder a public officer or employee involving the discharge of his or her official duties by means of, but not limited to, threats of or actual physical abuse or harassment, or through the use of simulated legal process, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084. ()€a) This section does not make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer or legal tribunal which is performed under lawful authority. (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. 25.As will be shown repeatedly, in every subsection, the §843.0855 statutory language is most fatally defective for its sloppy grammar, internal contradictions, and its casual use of “alternative” undefined verbs and predicate or subordinate clauses. 26. To begin with what exactly does it mean to “simulate” legal process? And what is the relationship of this term to “Color of Law?” And when the civil equivalents of these terms are considered difficult to define, how can crimes by established or outline, how can crimes be legislatively enacted with even less precision? Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §5843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 40 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness27. Florida Law recognizes a civil action for “abuse of process”, so is an abusive process “simulated?” Or is a simulated process “abusive?” Once again, it seems that the Florida legislature has sought to make a crime out of conduct for which there is a simple civil remedy (much like prosecuting Trussell for felonies on account of his excessive, overzealous, or even scandalous use of the Grand Jury process instead of filing a simple Motion to Suppress or Expunge under F.S. §905.28). (3) A person who simulates legal process, including, but not limited to, actions affecting title to real estate or personal property, indictments, subpoenas, warrants, injunctions, liens, orders, judgments, or any legal documents or proceedings, knowing or having reason to know the contents of any such documents or proceedings or the basis for any action to be fraudulent, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084. 28.According to the seminal Florida case on abuse of process, Bothmann v. Harrington, the elements of a civil cause of action for abuse of process requires proof of the use of criminal or civil legal process against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed. 458 So. 2d 1163 (Florida 3% DCA, November 6, 1984). 29. For the cause of action of abuse of process to exist there must be a use of the process for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was designed. As will be shown repeatedly in this statute, the parallel to actions taken under Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional a both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness“Color of Law” within the meaning of the Federal Civil Rights Action, 42 US.C. §§1983 & 1988(a) suggest that the conduct “defined” by §843.0855 can never be so precisely outlined or delineated as to justify a deprivation of life, liberty or property as a punishment for crime. 30. There is no abuse of process, for example, when the process is used to accomplish the result for which it was created, regardless of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose. In other words, the usual case of abuse of process involves some form of extortion. 31. If it is illegal to accuse public officials of crime without a sound basis in evidentiary probable cause, then much of modern political dialogue and discourse in the United States is already criminal (Hillary Clinton, for example, would have the right to sue almost everyone) 32. By this standard, F.S. §843.0855(3) obviously criminalizes a great deal of privileged speech and conduct which is protected by the First Amendment. 33. Again the problem arises from a disjunctive “or” as in “or any legal documents or proceedings.” “Any legal documents or proceedings?” Could this not refer to many political campaign statements and meetings aimed at accusing public officers or govemmmental employees of various kinds of graft or self-serving business dealings? Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3). and (4) Unconstitutional a both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness34, In other words, Terry George Trussell could not possibly be sued for abuse of process, much less prosecuted for anything more serious, given the facts as alleged in the September 19, 2014 Information against him, because no “process” was ever actually served on anyone, and because the envisioned “process” was well-within the lawfully defined functions of an ordinary statutory grand jury. C. FS. §843.0855 AS A WHOLE is FACIALLY VOID FOR VAGUENESS DUE TO LACK OF CLARITY, LACK OF DEFINITIONS FOR KEY TERMS, AND GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION 35.The Supreme Court has recently revisited the “Void for Vagueness” doctrine in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569 (June 26, 2015, opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia). 36. A criminal statute will be found void for vagueness and to violate the constitutional (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment) prohibition against vague criminal laws, where the statutory language, one or more words or clauses leave grave uncertainty as to the statutes applicability to which certain persons and what certain conduct or under what circumstances. 37. The language of F.S. §843.0855(2) is particularly problematic and parallel in its legislative and judicial history to its predecessor statute, F.S. §843.085, which was declared unconstitutional. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §$843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 43 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessA person who deliberately impersonates or falsely acts as a public officer or employee in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084, It is the intent of the Legislature that this section applies if a person acts as an officer or employee purporting to supersede or override any legislation or statute of this state, or to supersede or override any action of any court of this state. 38.Grammatical parallel structures should be construed as equal categories, just as a matter of semantic linguistics 39, Subsection 2, for example, starts off directing itself as a criminal prohibition against anyone who “deliberate impersonates or falsely acts as a public officer or employee” but by use of the altemative conjunction “or” includes anyone who “otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property.” 40. This double alternative use of the conjunction “or” means that there are three categories of possible defendants under Subsection (2): (a) A person who impersonates a public official or employee in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons or property (6) Apperson who falsely acts as a public official or employee in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons or property Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §5843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 44 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness(©) A person who otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property. 41 Obviously, the third alternative category is not criminal, but rather resembles the civil liability imposed on persons subject to suit for violations of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 & 1988. 42. The failure of the legislative authors (See Senate history) in the Florida House and Senate to offer any definitions of the verbal terms “impersonate” and “act falsely”, or the subordinate clauses “in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons or property” leaves the entire essence of this statute up to prosecutorial discretion. 43. Florida courts have grappled with the definition of “impersonation” before, for example in Broward Bank v. Commercial Bank of Hollywood, 547 So. 2d 687 (Florida 4" DCA, June 26, 1989), Broward Bank, appears to require that impersonation can only be proved where someone identifies himself or herself expressly by the name of another, either by signature or in face-to-face conversation. 44, Sult v, State, supra, appears expressly to have definitively resolved in the negative the question whether displaying “badges and incidents” of authority are sufficient to constitute an illegal “impersonation.” (Further analysis of Sult and other relevant cases will be filed in a separate Memo of Law). Motion to Declare Florida Statutes $5843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 5 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness45. These phrases come nowhere near the approximate clarity of the phrase ““involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” which the Supreme Court invalidated as “void for vagueness” in Johnson v. United States, supra. 46. The active essence of the §843.0855(2) attempt to define a crime is the verb and its predicate in each of the three alternative, disjunctive “or” clauses. 47. The first “definitions” section of F.S. §843.0855(1) utterly fails to address any of verbal words or phrases, and defines only “legal process” but not “action” or how a legal action must “affect persons or property.” 48. The definitions section of §843.0855(1) failing to define more than half of the key terms used throughout the balance of the subsections of the statute render this statute fatally imprecise and therefore void for vagueness, not to mention overbroad and subject to abusive prosecution, such as the present wildly oppressive Fourteen Count information against Terry George Trussell. 49. If we read this subsection carefully, giving each word and phrase full meaning as required by all canons of statutory construction, the Florida “Legislature intends that this section [concerning impersonation or falsely acting as a public officer or employee] applies” if a lawfully appointed public officer or employee of the State of Florida takes any action with which any other public officer or employee of the State of Florida disagrees. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 6 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness50. There is no other possible interpretation of this paragraph, because neither this nor any other Florida statute defines what “purporting to supersede or override any legislation or statute of this state, or to supersede or override any action of any court of this state,” could possibly mean. D. THE FAILURE OF PERSISTENT EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF VAGUENESS. 51.As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the United States Supreme Court opinion last year in Johnson v. United States, supra, the failure of persistent efforts to establish a standard can provide evidence of vagueness. 52. F.S. §843.0855 is now in its second avatar, its original version, F.S. §843.085, having previously been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Florida in Sult v. State, 906 So. 2d 1013 (Fla., June 23, 2005) when individuals were prosecuted for wearing apparel and insignia “belonging” to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department. 53. And yet now, as currently written, Florida Statute §§843.0855 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), taken together, as they must be, are so internally contradictory as to be incomprehensible and preposterous. 54. Of particularly striking moment, Subsection 5 all but nullifies subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) in a situation where an officer actually performs his duty as required by law, or where an officer acts “under color of law” in good faith, Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 47 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessalbeit mistakenly, and gives no guidance about how to know or objectively distinguish one situation from another (since honest people can and do often disagree): (5)(a)_ This section does not make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer or legal tribunal which is performed under lawful authority. (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. 55.Terry George Trussell contends in this case that he has at all times in good faith believed that he acted under lawful authority. 56. Terry George Trussell has asked for (and been thus far denied) the right to ‘open up the Grand Jury Proceedings to full and open discussion and discovery ‘to show that no person who dealt with him ever had any reason to believe that he was engaged in any sort of “fraud” (meaning “intentional deception”) or in any behavior which ever could have deceived or misled anyone as to his true authority, or the limitations thereon, and his intent to act as a law-abiding citizen. 57. When the law, on its face, is internally contradictory, it is facially void for vagueness. The normal and proper remedy when any citizen sees a ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 48 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessgovernmental officer or entity taking or about to take action contrary to law is to file a civil suit for injunction in a court of competent jurisdiction. 58. In effect, §843.0855(2) makes every disagreement about the interpretation of the law into a possible felony criminal prosecutions, as has been done here against Terry George Trussell. Such a statute is nothing more nor less than confusing and unable to be properly interpreted or enforced. 59. While the deposition transcripts of both Third Circuit State Attorney Jeffrey Siegmeister and especially of Dixie County Clerk Dana Johnson are replete and riddled with internal contradictions and paradoxes, it remains the case that both of these witnesses concurred, on January 15, 2016, that this statute hands a vast and almost unfettered degree of discretion to local functionaries such as County Clerks and Circuit prosecuting attorneys to determine what the law is, and how to apply nebulous facts to their own determination of the law. 60. This degree of local discretion implicit in the statute (on account of the vagueness and internal contradictions of the statutory language) makes the possibility of arbitrary and capricious, wildly unpredictable and uneven, enforcement of the law from case to case, county to county, circuit to circuit, and coincidence of political convenience to coincidence of political convenience into an absolute certainty of such things. ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §5843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 49 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessE. Further on F.S. §843.0855(2) AS APPLIED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 AGAINST Terry G. Trussell 61.The defendant, Terry George Trussell, stands charged by William N. Meggs’ aforementioned September 19, 2014, fourteen-count felony information alleging in COUNT I that he violated F.S. 843.0855(2) “Impersonation of a Public Official”. 62. Trussell was summoned to serve and duly-appointed and swom foreman of the Dixie County Grand Jury, which was convened according to the statutory law of the state of Florida and empaneled according to 905 statutes on April 27,2014. 63. Subsequently and consequently (but by no means independently, as a matter of causal etiology), Defendant Terry George Trussell was appointed and served as duly-appointed and swom foreman of the constitutional People’s Grand Jury under Common Law in Dixie County, seated on August 14, 2014. 64. For acting simultaneously with dual, statutory and common law authorities, the State of Florida filed its September 18, 2014, Count I of its Information, approved by temporarily-assigned Judge and Attomey for the Florida Third Circuit, Terry George Trussell allegedly committed a felony-level offense of §843.0855(2): ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 50 ‘both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessCOUNT I: On or about August 15, 2014, did unlawfully and deliberately impersonate or falsely act as a foreperson of a grand jury, a public officer or employee, in connection with or relating to the filing of a True Bill against Jeffery Siegmeister, a legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise took any action under color of law against persons or property, contrary to Section 843.0855(2), Florida Statutes. 65.The charges laid against Terry George Trussell in the September 19, 2014 Information filed by William N. Meggs, do not clearly fall within any above- cited provision of Florida Statutes 905 (but see also Terry George Trussell’s “Motion to Allow or Compel Testimony” filed as Dixie County Circuit Clerk’s Docket Entry #279). 66. The State’s charges against Trussell simply do not relate to “testimony” or the subsequent prosecution of any criminal case investigated by the Grand Jury. 67. Trussell believes and submits that no charges against him can stand in light of the Florida Supreme Court Grand Jury Instructions, see especially 4:1 Duties of the Foreperson: to preside over your sessions and see that they are carried out in an orderly fashion. 68. The charges against Trussell relate entirely to his management of the Grand Jury and his dedication to fulfill his responsibilities and under F.S. $905.20: “A grand juror who knows or has reason to believe that an indictable Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 51 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessoffense triable within the county has been committed shall report the information to the grand jury and may be sworn as witness in the investigation.” 69. It appears the charges against Terry Trussell also appear to seek to hold him accountable for taking the mandates of F.S. §§905.16-905.165 as minimum floor level mandates, below which he must not sink, rather than outer limit boundaries beyond which he should not traverse. These statutes command respectively: “The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.” FSS. §905.16 and “The grand jury may make presentments for offenses against the criminal laws, whether or not specific punishment is provided for the offense.” FSS. §905.165 70. Terry George Trussell has separately filed a Motion to Dismiss William N. Meggs’ September 19, 2014 Information against him because Defendant Terry George Trussell, as Foreman of the Statutory Grand Jury is entitled to absolute immunity for all his efforts to “fix” the problems created by State Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 52 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessAttorney Jeffrey Siegmeister and left unresolved by Judges Parker and Munkittrick. 71. Defendant has claimed his entitlement to such complete immunity under one or both of two theories: Defendant Trussell is either immune because of the “uniquely independent” status of the Grand Jury (Grand Jury Instructions, Page 3, “What is a Grand Jury”), or because the Grand Jury Foreman acts as a “uniquely independent” officer of the court in taking all his actions and activities as Grand Jury foreman. 72. Defendant Terry George Trussell has likewise submitted and contended in separate submissions that, in the alternative: (1) he was justified, by his “uniquely independent” status in restructuring and reconvening the Grand Jury because he took these actions in a manner entirely consistent with these F.S. §§903.16-905.165 and §905.20 parameters, taking their express and unqualified terms as a foundation for action rather than a ceiling, or (2) that he was entirely justified in cooperating with the People’s Grand Jury per Grand Jury Instruction 4:10: Motion to Declare Florida Statutes $§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 53 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness4.10 This grand jury has a duty to cooperate with any other grand jury investigations being conducted in this county or elsewhere in the state if the administration of justice requires it, including making reports of your investigation available to any subsequent grand jury of the county (or the statewide grand jury). 911 So.2d 766 at 790 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004) To Emphasize: “This grand jury has a duty to cooperate with any other.” F. SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS ON F.S. §843.0855(2) “IMPERSONATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL” AS APPLIED TO. TERRY GEORGE TRUSSELL 73.Florida law does not require Trussell to prove that his compliance with Statutory Grand Jury Procedure, or Supreme Court supervised grand jury practice, was perfect, but merely that he acted at all times in his official capacity, and therefore is immune from this state’s prosecution. 74, The lack of any requirement of perfection appears in the statute itself: for any errors of judgment or execution of his role, or for any improper or overreaching presentations, Florida statutes provide a ready, immediate, and entirely sufficient remedy, outlined in F.S. §905.28, namely the filing of a civil, not criminal, action or motion to correct, repress, suppress, or expunge, any inaccuracies in a grand jury’s report. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 54 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness75, Terry George Trussell has been charged, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, for impersonating a Grand Jury Foreman while serving as a Grand Jury Foreman. 76. Whether he can be convicted of such a bizarrely phrased crime is a question of great historic importance to the jurisprudence of the State of Florida and (at least possibly, imaginably) to the future course of the concepts of justice, equal access to the courts, freedom of speech, and due process of law in the United States, very generally. 77. Terry George Trussell faces, in essence fourteen charges of misconduct as a Grand Juror, which the State of Florida has filed as an information (effectively a death penalty to a 72 year old man such as the Defendant) without any regard or respect for the statutory immunity or fundamental rights thereupon trampled, or purported to be irrelevant to the State’s power to squash and suppress all political dissent to the operation and legitimacy of “routine” governmental functions. 78. As argued in his Motion to Dismiss for Selective, Politically Motivated Prosecution, Defendant Terry George Trussell is entitled to a preliminary hearing on all factual aspects of his claim to immunity, including the absolute immunity afforded grand jurors as a matter of law, and the fact-dependent immunity analogous to “stand-your-ground” immunity, asserting all actions Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 55 ‘both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessby Defendant were taken in defense of his reasonably-perceived interests and obligations and, indeed, his own oath as a grand juror. 79. Painting some individuals with a broad brush as “Enemies of the State” is a good way to allow the governments and certain activist NGOs to "round up MORE than the usual suspects", but actually seems broad enough to target anyone who seems even a little bit inconvenient because they oppose certain government policies. 80. If this is a project aimed at promoting full “secret police” employment at DHS, FBI, and Florida FDL, we must engage in the balancing project which the Supreme Court has mandated for all content-based restrictions on freedom of speech of speech, of the press, or of association. Full employment for the thought police will NEVER be a “Compelling objective.” 81. Basically, content-based restrictions on freedom of speech and association have to pass a three-part test to be certified as necessary “censorship” or “gag orders”---and nowhere do the people at the DHS or FBI seem to realize what THEY are doing to subvert truth, justice and the American way. 82. Terry George Trussell argues, contends, and submits to this Court that the entire prosecution against him constitutes an express legislatively conceived and executive implementation of a systematic attempt to pre-emptively censor and suppress a particular, conservative viewpoint of the continuing validity of the Anglo-American Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 56 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessConstitutional tradition and continuing validity of the American Constitution of 1787, as amended, as a set of fixed and immutable truths and axiomatic norms and values. RECENT FIRST AMENDM! RISPRUDENCE RESTRAINT 83.The general principal is well-known: that Under the First Amendment, PRIOR governments, including agents or agencies vested with state authority, have no power to impose prior restraints on free speech, or in any way to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, 135 S.Ct. 2218192 L.Ed.2d 23683 USLW 4444 (June 18, 2015). 84. Government discrimination among viewpoints, or the regulation of speech based on the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker, is a more blatant and egregious form of content discrimination, but the First Amendment's hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic. Reed, 135 S.Ct. 2218 at 2230. 85, As Terry George Trussell previously argued to this Court in his “Motion to Allow or Compel Testimony (Docket Entry 279), dependent from and derivative of this general principal, neither governmental regulation by statute or decree, nor policies law enforcement having the force and effect of express law should be allowed Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), 2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 57 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessunfairly to group and classify so broadly as to profile or target what are just “unique individuals,” who admittedly DO NOT CONSTITUTE A REAL SOCIAL, CULTURAL OR POLITICAL GROUP: Another challenge faced by investigators is the fact that the Sovereign Citizen movement is not an organized civil or criminal enterprise. It's a fractured series of loosely affiliated individuals who adhere to anti- government ideologies. This lack of organization does little to help investigators to get a foothold. However, the more we are able to learn about these unique individuals, the better armed we will be for future encounters and successful prosecutions. This lack of organization does little to help investigators to get a foothold. However, the more we are able to learn about these unique individuals, the better armed we will be for future encounters and successful prosecutions. Exhibit D: Moe Greenberg, PoliceOne.Com, March 28, 2013 86."Sovereign Citizens” may be defined, by certain Florida Legislators (exemplified in Exhibits B and C), or even the Police (Exhibit D), as “enemies of the state”, but the category of “Sovereign Citizen” refers to so many widely held “silent majority” beliefs among the people constituting the American Middle Class, that laws discriminating against or oppressing “Sovereign Citizens” may never be entitled, as a category, to the kind of “heightened scrutiny” afforded to “discrete and insular minorities” under the jurisprudence ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 58 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessof Footnote 4 of USA v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 58 S. Ct. 778, 82 L. Ed. 1234 (April 25, 1938). 87. To attack “Sovereign Citizens,” (while acknowledging that there is no one “group”, no “card carrying members” and no central organization of such people) and thus to attack those who advocate strict adherence to the Bill of Rights of 1791 and the Constitution of 1787 by classifying such people as “potential terrorists” represents a much more sinister but simultaneously more broad-based attack, Terry George Trussell contends, on the basic American way of life, a commitment to “truth, justice, and the American way” which some believe should be consigned now entirely to comic books and science fiction fantasies. 88. Accordingly, although “Sovereign Citizens” are neither a discrete nor insular group, but perhaps even a large plurality or gigantic minority of the modem American population, to suppress their freedom of speech and expression is to suppress the defenders of the Constitution, and so the Constitution, of the United States (not to mention the even broader and more protective terms of the Constitution of the State of Florida) as a whole, as an institution, as the fundamental comerstone of American values and, as stated above, with apologies for any inference of undue “melodrama’ the entire American way of life, the entire “American Dream.” Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 59 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness89, To be legally permissible under the First Amendment, a content-based restriction on first Amendment Freedoms, must pass a three-part (“Warren Burger Court- style”) “strict scrutiny” test. First, such restrictions, such “profiles of speech or conduct” (1) must be narrowly tailored to serve a COMPELLING governmental interest. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 2015, supra. 90. Laws that, though facially content neutral, cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, or that were adopted by the government because of disagreement with the message the speech conveys, like those laws that are content based on their face, must satisfy strict scrutiny. Id. 91. Targeting “Sovereign Citizens” by definition will always require analysis of the content of speech, and all the witnesses called for and against Defendant Terry George Trussell must be examined with regard to their understanding of the “profile” inventory of “Sovereign Citizen” beliefs, and whether these beliefs have anything at all to do with the creation of Common Law or Citizens’ Grand Juries as alternatives to statutory Grand Juries when the latter are seen as ineffective or corrupted by unscrupulous elected politicians with their own jurisdiction-maximizing, power- grabbing agendas. 92. In fact, content based censorship of ideas may only be permitted the second part of the test is satisfied: (2) when the proposed profile of dangerous speech or expressive activity is found to be the LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS to achieve a compelling Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 60 ‘both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessgovernmental objective. Reed, ibid. And , for the third part, (3) even where the government claims it has found the least restrictive means, the Supreme Court will only uphold this contention when the Governmental authority (executive with police power, judicial, or legislative) can show that it has actually examined all (or at least many) other alternatives and concluded that the censorship imposed is the LEAST restrictive means of achieving its goals. 93. This is a very old principle in First Amendment law, that speech cannot be subject to a prior restraint without the above-three-part test, going back at least 40 years to Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (June 29, 1976). 94. Government regulation of speech is “content based,” and thus presumptively unconstitutional, if a law (or targeted profile) applies to particular speech (or activity) because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed, and this ‘commonsense meaning of the phrase “content based” requires a court (or the police) to consider whether a regulation of speech on its face draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys. Id. 95. Defendant Terry George Trussell submits that the prosecution against him has been smeared and tainted by Jeffrey Siegmeister’s implementation of a value-laden prejudicial assessment of common law grand juries and citizens’ grand juries as related to this chimerical movement called “Sovereign Citizen”, which is really just Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 61 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessa “smear” label for conservative Americans attempting to restrain the power of the central governments and enhance the power of people in their local homes and neighborhoods. 96. Exploration of Defendant Terry George Trussell’s status as an “invented public enemy” will has be unconstitutionally and therefore illegally categorized, given an improper status, labeled and thus prejudged as something that not only HE is not, but in fact NO ONE ELSE IS EITHER. 97. Part of the Siegmeister agenda, here implemented by William N. Meggs, acting as “Special Prosecutor,” is clearly and obviously to suppress discussion of common law grand juries or citizen’s grand juries as alternatives to statutory grand juries all together. 98. Government discrimination among viewpoints is a “more blatant” and “egregious form of content discrimination,” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995), but 109. “{t]he First Amendment's hostility to content-based regulation [also] extends to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic,” Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U.S. 530, 537, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). As the Supreme Court has articulated in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, supra, some facial distinctions based on a message are obvious, defining regulated speech by particular subject matter, and others are more subtle, defining Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 62 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vaguenessregulated speech by its function or purpose, but both are distinctions drawn based on the message a speaker conveys, and, therefore, are subject to strict scrutiny. 99.Defendant Terry George Trussell submits that, in every sense, targeting a viewpoint for selective and politically motivated prosecution is equivalent to censorship, but the purpose of the present motion is to obtain evidence conceming the structure and plan of the Government's targeting of the “Sovereign Citizen Movement” and its relationship, if any, to the Common Law/Citizens Grand Jury Movement. WHEREFORE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED that this Honorable Court Declare Fla Stat. §843.0855 (2)(3) and (4) Unconstitutional facially and as applied to Defendant Terry Trussell, and for any other relief deemed fit and proper. A further memo of law is being filed Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 63 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessDefendant Terry George Trussell’s Acknowledgment & Verification Rutle 3.190(¢)(3) Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure I, the undersigned Terry George Trussell, the Defendant in Case Number 2014-201 CF, Dixie County, do hereby acknowledge, affirm, swear to and verify the truth of all statements of fact in my above-and-foregoing Motion to Declare FS 843.0855 unconstitutional, under penalty of perjury, and in the presence of the undersigned officer. Terry George Trussell, a natural person and Defendant in this case STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Lam an officer authorized to administer oaths in the State of Florida, County of, Defendant Terry George Trussell appeared in person before me on this Monday the 2" day of May, 2016 to acknowledge, affirm, swear to and verify his Motion to Declare F.S. 843.0855 Unconstitutional, as required by law. Being known to me and/or having presented me with sufficient identification, namely his with number I did then and there administer the oath to the Defendant and I require him to depose and to acknowledge, affirm, and swear to the truth of all statements of fact made within the above-and-foregoing Motion, which he did freely and voluntarily and under no apparent disability. Defendant Terry George Trussell did then and there sign and acknowledge his oath and statement before me on this 2 day of May, 2016, by Notary Public, my signature and seal of 0 Printed Name:, Business Address, Telephone: Commission # » Expire Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 64 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessCERTIFICATE Opposing counsel has been contacted in an effort to resolve the matter without hearing, We will inform the Court is hearing is necessary. (Pursuant to Item 4 of Judge Hankinson's February 29, 2016, Case Management Order — DE-269) May 3, 2016 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Inger M. Garcia, Esq. /s/ Inger Garcia, Esq. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above motion has been served this 3rd day of May, 2016, to all parties listed on the following Service list. 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 (954) 446-1635 E-Mail:attormney@ingergarcia.com attommey@FloridaPotL_awFirm.com By: /s/ Inger M. Garcia, Esq. Inger Garcia, Esq. (FBN:0106917) ‘Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional 65 both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and VaguenessSERVICE LIST William N. Meggs All on service list Leon County Courthouse 301 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 hurstm@leoncountyfl.gov TWO PHRASES COMMONLY FOUND IN STATUTES THAT MAKES THEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL 1...Known, or had reason to know...” or any of its tenses. This phrase insinuates cognition of things unknowable as applied to the general populace. Only if applied to an agency or agent with special authority and qualifications, this phase is effective. It implies a minimum requirement of competence required in an office or position. Motion to Declare Florida Statutes §§843.0855(1), (2), (3), and (4) Unconstitutional both as applied to Terry Trussell and Facially, for Overbreadth and Vagueness 66Defendant Terry George Trussell’s Acknowledgment & Verification Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure the Defendant in Case Number 2014-201 CF. I. the undersigned Terry George Trussel Dixie Coumy. do hereby acknowledge. aflirm. swear to and verify the truth ol all statements of fac} in my above-and-foregoing Motion, under penalty at pares, amd in the presence of the undersigned officer, a“ . a a a co Cc : eee eager Can ferry George Trussell. a natural person and Defendanvdn this ease STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Dice Tam an officer authorized to administer oaths in the State of Florida. County of Defendant Terry George Trussell appeared in person before me on this Monday the of May, 2016 cknowledge. affirm. swear to and verify his Motion, as required by law. L_Being known to me andor having presented me with sufficient identification, namely his ith bumbe? Tadd then and there udminiaee hen the Defendant and I require him to depose and te acknowledge. affirm. and swear to the trath wf al atemerts of fact made within the ahove-and-toregoing Motion, which he did freely and voluntarily and under ‘no apparent disability Defendant Terry George Trussell did then and there sign and acknowledge his oath and statepent before me on this 2" day of May. 2016. by \ Public. my Sigumure and seal of o! Tape TD Bare en Te SE Mn LLL tan —Prinféd Name: Business Address 27 D Cop wn fe Rese Telephone: Commission EE 973200 spires, Jew 18) 2aees