The KrisAnne Hall Show
The 6th Amendment: What is it worth to you?
November 4, 2014
Transcribed by: Angilyn Mathews
Listen to the audio podcast here: http://krisannehall.com/6th-amendment-worth/
Intro: I know you’re out there. I know that you’re afraid. You’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone and then I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see; a world without rules and controls, a world without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.
Rise and shine liberty loving patriots! KrisAnne Hall here. Welcome to the KrisAnne Hall show! We are a teach-show and not a talk-show. Hoping to bring the education of Liberty First to a struggling and starving Republic. Hopefully bringing the good news, the solutions, to our out-of-control government problem. And we do have an out-of-control government problem. If we don’t see that then there shall be no hope. If we don’t see that there are problems that need to be fixed then we have no hope. But we do have hope because there are many awakening, many understanding that we have traveled far from our original course. But a course correction is necessary and it can be achieved. And it can only be achieved through education; so that’s what we do here on the KrisAnne Hall Show. KrisAnneHall.com.
I’m so pleased to be a part of the reeducation of America, the reestablishment of liberty, the restoration of the Republic and today is where we’re going to be a little bit more teach-y than news-y today. We usually are, but more so today. Because I am an attorney; you know that if you’ve listened to me for any period of time. And I’m a little irritated to say the very least at the training that I got in law school and its contradiction to the Constitution and its focus on how to circumvent the Constitution. Yes, that’s what they teach in law school; They do not teach the Constitution, they teach us how to circumvent it, and they teach us that men and women in black robes sitting on benches know more about the Constitution than the men who wrote it. And now you know why we are in the fix that we’re in.
Now, I am a little irritated, maybe even somewhat bitter, at the education that I received, given the understanding that I have of the necessity of the Constitution. Daniel Webster said in 1806, July 4, 1806, by the way, he said, “Is the Constitution worth preserving?” He said, “Then guard it as you would the very seat of your life. Guard it not only against the open blows of violence but also against that spirit of change.” And that’s what law schools do, they are built on the spirit of change; the spirit that changes the fundamental foundations of who we are, and is transforming us into something that our Framers never intended us to be, actually prayed we would never become, went to war to break away from. And so what we’re going to be teaching today, I’m inspired to teach about the Sixth Amendment today. I’m particularly inspired to teach about the Sixth Amendment because of something that I experienced recently:
I was in a courtroom… You’ve heard me, if you listen to my daily show, you have heard me talk about Terry Trussell. Terry Trussell is a man in Dixie County, Florida, Cross City, Florida, who filed some complaints against the government for misconduct. The government turned on him and arrested him for a series of charges, some archaic charges, Draconian charges, if you will, of impersonating a government official. I can’t wait for this trial. I hope that I am in town for this trial because I cannot wait for it. It is going to be a very interesting thing to see the state prove that this man was impersonating a government officer. And so, the interesting thing here is, not the fact that he was charged with impersonating a government officer, but the fact that he showed up for his arraignment, these are criminal charges and he received a notice to appear; he appeared for his arraignment and during the arraignment, while he was standing in the courtroom, was arrested for failure-to-appear.
It’s a very, very odd thing actually: The defendant, the accused, Mr. Trussell, in the courtroom saying, “I am present. I am here to answer for the charges.” And the judge calling out his name. “I am present. I am here to answer for the charges.” The judge saying, “This man has failed to appear, take him into custody, Sheriff, Deputy, Bailiff, and put him in jail.” Yes, you just heard that. “I am present and I am willing to answer for these charges.”
“He has failed to appear.’ (The Judge says,) “Bailiff, take him into custody.”
Yeah! That’s really, really bizarre because at that point in time you don’t care what he did to get into that courtroom; the judge has determined that the man standing in the courtroom has failed to appear, even though he’s standing in the courtroom, and is being charged with failure-to-appear, and arrests him!
So, I have the opportunity to be in Cross City, Florida, which is Dixie County, Florida for Mr. Trussell’s arraignment on his failure-to-appear; because it’s now a new charge, he gets a new arraignment. Now mind you, he has been in jail for 21 days, on a failure-to-appear where he was standing in the courtroom. 21 days, in jail, for a failure-to-appear, when he was standing in the courtroom. 21 days in jail, denied a bond. Denied a bond. You know, can we just simply read to you the 8th Amendment? The 8th Amendment says,
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
How is no bond compliant with the 8th Amendment? No bond on a case where there’s no threat of violence; he committed no violence to anyone. He was no threat of violence to anyone. How is no bond compliant with the 8th Amendment when the man is in jail for a failure-to-appear, when he when he was standing in the courtroom, when he was arrested to failure-to-appear?
These are the things that we’re going to talk about today. Because when I went to this arraignment for Mr. Trussell I heard some very, very shocking things come out of the mouth of the judge and the mouth of the chief prosecutor. Now, he’s the chief prosecutor, he’s not just simply the chief prosecutor, he’s the elected prosecutor for the 2nd judicial circuit of the state of Florida. He is an elected position. He is an elected representative of the people, as a prosecutor for the 2nd judicial circuit of the state of Florida. And so here’s what happens: Mr. Trussell is standing before the judge, and the judge asks him, “Do you have the intention to get an attorney?” He says, “I do have an intention to get an attorney. I’m trying to secure an attorney. I expected an attorney to be here today. I do not intend to represent my self. The problem is, I’ve been in jail for 21 days and it’s been difficult to secure an attorney. It is under my impression that we have put a down payment on an attorney and the attorney was going to be here. I do not know why the attorney is not here.” And then the judge says, the most very, very bizarre thing, “Well, Mr. Trussell, I do intend to give you,” And I quote; because I wrote it down here. We were not allowed to record; the judge refused to allow anyone to record, even members of the press. Now, I believe that if I had known that ahead of time, I would have filed some type of motion, because the Supreme Court argues against the judge just arbitrarily determining that no reports, no press, can take recordings.
Now, recording is different than video taping, okay, so the court, the Supreme Court says that video taping can be limited but recording can only be limited in very, very limited aspects, and only through the issuing of an order from a superior judge. And so, I would have filed something had I known that we were not going to be able to record. But here we go. I took notes, and I wrote this as he said it, and wrote three asterisks afterwards: This judge says to Mr. Trussell,
“Well, Mr. Trussell, I am willing to give you a limited constitutional right to represent yourself. I am willing to give you a limited constitutional right to represent yourself.”
How many of my members of the Liberty First Brigade are already recognizing at least three problems with that statement? “I am willing.”: Problem number one. As if it’s his choice. He can choose which rights apply to you and which do not. “To give.”: Problem number two. Your rights are not given to you by any member of government. Your rights are inherent. You see, we have erred in the teaching of our Bill of Rights so now our judges and our lawyers believe that Constitutional, that you have Constitutional rights, rights that are given to you via the Constitution and since the judges are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution, they are the ultimate authorities over the Constitution, and the ultimate facilitators of the Constitution, then they are the givers of the rights. “I am willing to give you limited Constitutional rights.”:
Problem number three. Limited Constitutional rights. How is it any judge’s authority on this planet to limit your Constitutional rights? Even understanding there has been no hearing, just arbitrarily this judge says, “I am going to give you limited Constitutional rights,” And this judge is dumber than I’ve ever thought.
Welcome back to the KrisAnne Hall Show. KrisAnneHall.com. Are you sick and tired of out-of-control government? Are you sick and tire of operating in a system that has no respect for your rights, but expects you to respect its laws? Then, may I invite you to go to my website, KrisAnneHall.com, and you’ll find the solutions to these problems. That’s what we’re all about: truth, teaching, and solutions. KrisAnneHall.com, please go to my website today. Please promise me that you will go to my website in the next 24 hours. If you do not go in the next 24 hours, you will not go. Go to my website in the next 24 hours, read just one article, listen to just one more podcast, besides this one, listen to a video – watch a video, and share something, please. Go to my facebook page; we’re posting four times a day at a minimum, sometimes at a maximum. Please share this information so that we can inspire others to stand for the Constitution.
We are talking about the absolutely outrageous hearing against Terry Trussell in Dixie County, Florida, conducted by a judge named James Hankinson. And Judge James Hankinson has told Terry Trussell,
“I am willing to give you a limited Constitutional right to defend yourself.”
Now I want to ask you, are you willing to allow this man go unchallenged? Are you willing to allow Terry Trussell to live on his own and defend himself in this matter? Because I want you to take the opportunity to exercise your right to disagree with this judge, standing for the rights of Terry Trussell, so that you can stand for your own rights. You see, we’ll either hang together or we’ll hang separate but we will surely hang in a system like this, and its time for the Liberty First Brigade to stand up
I want to give you the contact information for judge James Hankinson. Please write this down and contact him:
His phone number, 850-577-4320. His email: DavisDA@leoncountyfl.gov.
We’ve gotta learn how to stand for each other in this situation. You know what, you may live in Washington state, you may live in Upstate New York, you may live in South Florida, you may live in Arizona, but if we don’t stand for each other in the name of liberty across this country, how will there be anybody left to stand for us when it’s our turn? And this judge has told Terry Trussell, “I am willing to give you a limited Constitutional right to defend yourself.” How does this judge exist in such a state of ignorance and arrogance at the same time, to believe that he has the authority to choose, the authority to give, and the authority to limit any right whatsoever? I am so appalled by this.
It is difficult for me to even go on from this, but this hearing does not get any better. He says to Terry Trussell, “We are going to set your trial date for February 9th through 11th, and if we determine that you are not qualified to represent yourself, and you fail to get an attorney, this is going to be a very one-sided hearing. He says,
“This is already an awkward situation because no attorney is here to represent you, and therefore it is not appropriate to hear from you.”
When did it become “appropriate” for a court to deny someone a right to be heard?! This should send shivers up your spine!
I am going to give you Justice James Hankinson’s contact information for every segment until we’re done because I think this is very important for our Liberty First Brigade to be responsive in this.
Justice James Hankinson’s phone number is 850-577-4320. His email is DavisDA@leoncountyfl.gov;
you go to my facebook page and I will post this for you. It is important that we stand together so we don’t hang separately. We must stand now. I don’t care where you are in the country, but this is ridiculous for a judge to stand up and say that “it is awkward for me to hear from you in the courtroom because you have no attorney, and it’s not appropriate for me to hear from you”.
When do we have a limited right to be heard from the court? Based on the fact that we are represented by an attorney? When did it become a requirement of due process to have an attorney to represent you? It is a choice! It is a right to have one if you choose to have one, but if you don’t have one, it’s not a requirement to be heard. Because, you see, if it’s a requirement to be heard, and the judge and the courtroom can ignore your presence, hello! Arresting a man for failure to appear when he’s standing in the courtroom; if it is a matter of our process to deny someone a voice to be heard, even though he’s present, just because he doesn’t have an attorney, how is that appropriate due process? How is that any respect of liberty? It is not!
Terry Trussell says,
“I have substantial standing in this community. There is no threat of me leaving or fleeing. I have assets in town. I am going to get an attorney for my defense. I am in good standing. I am not a flight risk.” And he says, “I already have a bond against me. Can you please let me out of jail so I can prepare for my defense?”
And the judge says, “It’s awkward to hear from you because you don’t have an attorney.” That is outrageous. That is so antithetical to what our Founders believed; what they shed blood for.
Listen to what the 6th Amendment says: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.
Yeah, not one where the judge can limit the public’s access; not one where the judge can say that the press is not allowed to record. Cause it says here,
“a public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. Which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the right of assistance of counsel for his defense.”
There are so many things, it is so rich in here, and there are so many rights in this. That we are to be reminded that ours inherently… That was the purpose of the Bill of Rights; to remind us what our inherent rights were, not to establish our right to them. And the judge says, “I’m willing to give you a limited Constitutional right. Mr. Trussell says,
“I was not given a fair opportunity to be heard at the last hearing. I was announcing my presence, I was saying, ‘I’m here’. I’m not going to ignore this charge; I will stand.” And the very same judge who said that “I am willing to give you a limited Constitutional right”
replies to Mr. Trussell and says,
“Well, I do recognize that someone was standing in the courtroom, but I couldn’t know who you were, so I had you arrested for failure-to-appear.”
A judge apparently, who’s willing to recognize a limited Constitutional right is also willing to have an unknown, unidentified man arrested for failure-to-appear at a hearing in which he is appearing. And then, it gets even worse. The judge says, “Without an attorney, Mr. Trussell, you need to have an attorney.” He said,
“Without an attorney this will be a one-sided trial, because you cannot be heard without an attorney.”
What in the world is this judge talking about?! This judge has just announced in his courtroom of limited constitutional rights that the 6th Amendment is toilet paper; it means absolutely nothing! Because “without an attorney, you can’t be heard.”
Well, I’m reading in this 6th Amendment that
“in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
I am saying that he has the right to these things. It’s not saying that this is a requirement for his right to be heard. “In a speedy and public trial.” It does not say, “In all criminal prosecutions where the accused is represented by a lawyer”. It does not say that! It does not say, “In all criminal prosecutions where the accused has an attorney present.” This is an unqualified right. In all criminal prosecutions you have these rights. But in this statement the judge is saying several things: Without an attorney you can’t be heard.
And since we’ve already determined, because this happened before: The public defender’s office, some people I used to work with in that circuit; because I used to be working in that circuit as a prosecutor; this would have never happened this way. If I had been the supervisor in this office, this never would have happened this way. Let’s just be clear about that. The public defender told us that Mr. Trussell filled out his information and did not qualify; he had too many assets for public counsel, based on monetary needs. And this judge is saying, if you cannot provide yourself with an attorney, you cannot represent yourself; you cannot be heard. How interesting is that?
See, there’s another problem with this, because this judge is linking your 6th Amendment right, to have the assistance of counsel for your defense, to your capacity to pay for one; as if the only time the government has to appoint an attorney to represent you is when you cannot afford one. I’m sorry, I didn’t read that caveat in the 6th Amendment. Did you? Let’s go over that one more time because this is very important. “In all criminal prosecutions.”, not just the ones that the judge determines to have limited constitutional rights. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.’ Period!
It does not say, “to have assistance of counsel for his defense if he can’t afford to provide one for himself.” No! It is an unqualified right to have an assistance of counsel for his defense. Why? Because the 6th Amendment is not there for poor people. No! The 6th Amendment is there for all people, and it’s there for a reason. It’s not for a reason when you can’t afford it. It’s there because we’re afraid that the government will become so tyrannical that it will deny you these rights. See, the 6th Amendment is not for poor people; we are not afraid that poor people that are prosecuted will be denied a speedy trial, a trial by a jury, or attorney. Our Framers were concerned that any people would be denied these rights by a tyrannical government; by a government who would exert a power greater to the suppression of the due process, inherent due process, rights of the people. It’s not for poor people, it’s for all people.
And it’s to protect us, not from poverty, but to protect us from tyranny. See, what happens, this is the system that we have set up; the system where the government makes the laws; the system where government pays law enforcement to enforce the laws; a system where the government pays the prosecutor to prosecute the laws; a system where the government pays the judge to sit and to determine the authority of those laws. How is it that you believe you have any hope of any just trial in a system where the government makes the laws, enforces the laws, prosecutes the laws, and sits in judgment of those laws? So, what would happen; let’s just imagine, that the government becomes so tyrannical, that the people fear the government so much, that you are unable to find an attorney to represent you because every attorney in the area is afraid of retaliation from the government. Well, then you don’t have an attorney, right? Not because you can’t afford one but because the government has become so tyrannical that the attorneys fear retaliation from the government. That is why you have the right to the assistance of counsel, because then the lawyer can say, “Look, I am representing this guy because you have appointed me, not because I choose to, so you can’t retaliate against me for defending this man and his rights; because I have been appointed.” The right to the assistance of counsel is not to protect poor people from poverty; it is there to protect all people from tyranny, and it’s about time our judicial system catch a snap!
Welcome back to the KrisAnne Hall Show. We’re having an in-depth study of the 6th Amendment today because of the actions of
Judge James Hankinson, of the 2nd Judicial Circuit in Tallahassee, Florida. His phone number: 850-577-4320. His email: DavisDA@leoncountyfl.gov.
Please stand in defense of Terry Trussell. Please contact Justice James Hankinson and explain to him that he is an officer of the court who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the liberty of the people, and professing that people have limited, limited, constitutional rights based on his qualification is simply unacceptable. Please explain to him that Mr. Trussell has a right to an attorney; if he cannot find one to represent him, regardless of this financial capacity; because, guess what, we do not have the 6th Amendment to protect poor people against poverty, we have a 6th Amendment to protect all people from a tyrannical government. And apparently Justice Hankinson does not understand that. We also have a situation, a 6th Amendment situation, where Terry Trussell has requested a bill of particulars; meaning he wants to be informed of the nature and the accusations, and the cause of the accusations against him; he wants to be informed, in particular, of the nature and the cause of the accusations against him, and the Judge Hankinson response, “The court won’t hear you because you have no attorney.” “See, this is the problem,” the judge said, “You’re requesting a bill of particulars but I can’t hear you because you do not have an attorney to represent you.”
Again! Can we please do this again?! “In all criminal prosecutions…” Not just ones where you’re represented by an attorney.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”
This is the 6th Amendment. The 6th Amendment secures his right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation and the judge is saying, No, I can’t do that because you don’t have an attorney. And you have not been qualified by me to represent yourself. You cannot stand before me and make any request of me, because I don’t hear you. I can’t hear you in my courtroom without an attorney, and without me deeming you to be qualified to be heard. You must qualify, in my opinion, to receive your limited constitutional rights.
Wow. I knew justice was blind, but I learned that day that she is deaf too. Apparently, justice, in order to be heard, must have a hearing-aid that consists of the qualification of the judge, or an attorney to speak on your behalf. Is this the nature of the system of due process; the change Otis Jr. fought for? Is this the nature of due process that Thomas Jefferson pledged his life for? Is the nature of due process that Samuel Adams and John Hancock put their lives on the line? Is this the nature of due process that Samuel Adams was talking about when he said we had an inherent right to protect our life, our liberty, and our property? Is this the nature of due process in our 5th Amendment that says that we shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? Is this the nature of due process that you want for your children? It’s time to speak up. Don’t sit still, please, I’m begging you. Liberty First Brigade, stand up!