Yesterday, November 20, 2018, was another long day in the life of a Lee County Jail inmate, especially the one who has been labeled as pubic enemy number one by the Court and the people who control it. I had a hearing on my motion to dismiss several of the frivolous counts against me, all of which are frivolous. The court experience here is awful. It’s a long day that drains you physically and emotionally. This is how they get most inmates to accept their guilty pleas because after a few times you don’t want to do it any longer. When we have morning court we are woken up at 3:30 AM and taken to a holding cell. From there we are chained up, unchained, handcuffed, uncuffed, and taken from one jail to the other jail where the courts are. After being bounced around to different holding cells for about 4-6 hours until the hearings begin anywhere between 8:15 – 11:00. Then we get to have our 1-5 minutes in front of the judge. It definitely wears you down. My hearing yesterday was set for 9:45 and began closer to 10 AM. I was done by 10:20 and then sat in another holding cell for 3 1/2 hours before being transported back to the jail where I am housed and finally making it back to my cell by about 2:30 PM.
In my case, yesterday I had about 20 minutes in front of the judge since it was a motion hearing. A Motion to Dismiss is almost never granted, despite how strong the grounds are. I didn’t expect much, but I did have hopes that some of the more ridiculous of the 19 counts against me could be dismissed. Because the Court has been going out its way to work with the State against me, it’s always interesting and baffling to see what will happen next. I certainly learn something new every time, and yesterday was no different. The state prosecutor, James D. Miller, has the easiest job when it comes to my case because he gets anything he wants from his co-prosecutor, Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck. He filed a Motion to Strike my motion because I didn’t properly do my oath. Not being an attorney is so difficult, especially procedurely. In addition to addressing my improper oath, Miller, in his motion, disputed several of my arguments for the dismissal of many counts. As such, I was prepared to rebut his statements in my oral response before the court, especially because Miller went out of his way to deceive the court by entering exhibits that did not reflect the charges in order to avoid my tough accusations.
Anyway, the judge, rather than to just strike my motion for its deficiencies, knowing that they could be corrected and resbumitted, decided (with the State’s permission) to just go ahead and hear it anyway. This was so nice of them, especially when they both knew the outcome before I even walked into the courtroom. I called out Miller on his exhibits and obvious lies, but he responded by saying that he didn’t need to respond because what I was addressing was not within the four corners of my motion. Again that procedure thing is getting me, but I was under the assumption that I would be able to rebut his motion during the hearing. Basically, the judge looked the other way to Miller’s lies and deceit, and added an interesting legal opion of her own. It seems to be that Judge Steinbeck has been practing law from the bench throughout my case, but I supposed that, along with everything else, is only a matter of opinion unless another “legal expert” can review the transcripts and say otherwise.
Like I have said all along, my charges are very vague and subjective, where the people in charge can call it whatever they like to justify the actions against me. All of the 19 charges involve “simulation of the legal process”. For this reason, it is important to first understand how that is defined according to Florida Statute. Let’s start by looking at the definition under the statutes as seen below:
“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, unjunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order.
That’s a pretty vague definition and leaves it open to broad interpretation. Fortunately, two Florida attorneys have helped us break that down with their own legal opinion, which you will see in a moment below.
I am being blamed for the actions of a man named Joel Soucy, who filed several documents from the International Court of Commerce (“ICC”), let’s start there. The ICC’s website described it as follows:
“The International Court of Commerce (“ICC”), as a Court of Record established under the Common Law, provides an alternate dispute resolution forum for the adjudication of judicial and administrative proceedings. Judicial Proceedings are actions in which both of the parties to a commercial dispute have consented to the Court taking evidence under oath, and have granted to the Court the authority to make inquiries and judicial determinations. Administrative Proceedings are actions in which one or more parties to a commercial dispute petitions the Court to witness an Administrative Process and to make determinations based on specific agreed upon terms and conditions and the facts and evidence estabished by records.
The ICC is a party to the Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The ICC’s role is as an Alternative Dispute Resolution forum has jurisdiction, inter alia, to resolve: commercial disputes through administrative proceedings, judicial determinations, arbitration and/or mediation. Proceedings are executed, governed, and construed in accordance with the governing laws of the contract and common law, and guided but not bound by private international law, the Uniform Commerical Code, UNCITRAL and Law Merchant.”
I did not create the ICC, therefore I am not responsible for the description above, or its rules or adjudication agreements. I will post these if they are available. I build web sites so this information was provided to me for that purpose. I’m not that smart and don’t know about all of this stuff. As Lee County investigator, Robert Nichols, told my wife during their recorded interview, you would need a legal background to create these documents, and “Randy doesn’t have it.” He has since changed his tune to suit the State’s agenda, calling me the mastermind. But, based on the little that I do know, and just by paying attention, reading and understanding basic definitions, the ICC is not illegal and is not a “legal process” as defined by the State. Even Judge Steinbeck acknowledged this on October 19, 2018, only to change her mind yesterday on November 20, 2018. That is really what is confusing me today, because I now have a judge that is saying two different things when determining what a “legal process” is, and my life and freedom is on the line.
The ICC exhibits provided by the prosecutor, James D. Miller, clearly state that “THIS IS A PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.” Under the “PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACTS” section for one particular document it states as follows:
“The Federal Arbitration Act (Pub.L. 68-401, 43 Stat. 883, enacted February 12, 1925, codified at 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et. seq.) is an act of Congress that provides for judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. It applies in both state courts and federal courts, as was held constitutional in Southland Corp. V. Keating.”
That sounds pretty legitimate to me, but let’s get back to the definition of legal process and break that down some more because this is where it gets interesting.
Let’s start at the beginning: “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…” The ICC is a private administrative proceeding as decribed above, and is not an offical court of this state or the United States. So any documents from the ICC or filed and recorded within the ICC do not fall under the definition of legal process.
This is confirmed by Attorney Joseph T. Kohn of Naples, Florida. Mr. Kohn said the following in a motion from case 2014-CA-051202: “To be clear, the ICC is not a court of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, this Court may not take judicial notice of the matters requested.”
Attorney Steven Carta, an alleged victim in my case, and the personal attorney for the Lee County Clerk of Court, Linda Doggett, gave this legal opion in a letter to Mrs. Doggett dated May 2, 2015, pertaining to the ICC judgments that Joel Soucy attempted to record with the clerk’s office: “The judgment submitted to your Office for recording is not a judgment of this state, nor of any other state, territory or commonwealth of the United States, nor a judgment of the United States. For that reason, it is my legal opinion that the subject judgment is not entitled to be, and should not be, recorded in the Official records of Lee County by your Office.”
I am being charged with simulation of the legal process due to Joel Soucy’s ICC judgment and other ICC documents. It is pretty clear from the above legal opinions that the ICC in and of itself IS NOT A LEGAL PROCESS. This was established and acknowledged in Judge Steinbeck’s court on October 19, 2018. When I brought it to the Court’s attention the judge questioned the state about this, saying she didn’t want to go to trial only to find out that the statutes hadn’t been satisfied. As to be expected, the state defended the charges by saying that while the ICC by itself may not be a legal process, when Joel Soucy filed the ICC documents into the public court in Lee County, they became a legal process because of the section of the definition that says “FILED OR RECORDED”. In that case the charges might make sense if in fact I caused Joel Soucy to take such action. However, this is where it becomes disturbing to me. On October 19th the judge read the legal definition and seemed in agreement that the ICC by itself was not a legal process, but then in court yesterday (11/20) she reviewed the State’s ICC exhibits included in its Motion to Strike and determined that they are legal processes and used it as her reason to deny my motion. What’s important to understand is that none of the ICC documents from the State’s exhibits were filed into the Lee County court or any other public venue. I’m not saying that the ICC documents in question were never entered into a public court case, because it is possible that they were, however, the specific ones included as exhibits yesterday were not, and therefore not a legal process. So, why is the judge now changing her mind? This concerns me because now we have a judge that says one thing during one hearing, and then changes her mind during another hearing a month later in order to help the State and her colleagues, who are the alleged victims. How can I defend myself against a judge that can’t even follow the law and remain consistent.
This brings me to the next aspect of the “legal process” argument that I presented yesterday. The next part of the definition of legal process says the document are filed or recorded “…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 specficied act.”
This is really important and what I argued yesterday. I am seeking the opinion of a legal expert on this because it is the section of the definition emphasised above in ALL CAPS that the state has focused on, and I’m glad Mr. Miller brought it to my attention. The key aspect of the definition being “FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXERCISING JURISDICTION OR REPRESENTING A CLAIM”.
Fifteen of the counts against me pertain to documents that were filed as exhibits into civil foreclosure cases, and not one of those documents were filed as the document or vehicle by which to invoke a court’s jurisdiction or represent a claim on their own. They were merely exhibits that were attached to the pleadings in those civil cases. None of them were actually filed in a cout as a claim or styled to a court as a legal process meant to invoke a court’s jurisdiction and cause the court to act against a person or property as a result of a claim. Soucy was using those documents from his private processes to show the court that the Respondents to those documents had failed to respond and by their silence were agreeing to his claims. It was simply evidence.
Neither Soucy or myself were charged for the actual legal processes that these exhibits were submitted in support of. The exhibits were used as evidence to support Soucy’s claims, but the evidence by itself is not a claim. The definition of “evidence” from Black’s Law Dictionary states as follows:
Evidence – “Something (including testimony, documents, and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existenece or nonexistence of a fact.”
For example, the first eight charges against me are for Soucy’s “filing” of federal arrest warrants. He refers to these as “proposed warrants”, but can they be defined as a legal process? Forget the fact that it’s absolutely ridiculous that this man’s decisions are falling on me, especially when he did these actions from across the country and I never even met the man. Aside from that, can a federal arrest warrant from the United States District Court, which has no standing in a state court venue, be considered a “legal process” when filed as an exhibit or at all for that matter? Is Soucy’s using of those warrants as an exhibit for another pleading considered “EXCERSISING JURISDICTION”? Can those proposed federal arrest warrants “REPRESENT A CLAIM” in a court of another jurisdiction? I really don’t think so. I think the entire case is so far reaching and just a sham. The arrest warrants were not even filed into the federal court, which is not under the State’s jurisdiction anyway.
If there is an attorney willing to offer his or her legal opinion on this I would greatly appreciate it. I would certainly welcome any attorney, who believes in law and justice, to be an expert witness for my defense at my trial. Unfortunately no attorneys in Lee County are willing to oppose the State or judges here in my case, and I can’t afford the few attorneys willing to represent me, which is why I am representing myself. However, with the support of my loving family and friends, we would make all attempts to compensate an attorney for their required fees as an expert witness at trial.
I can’t give up and know that this is just wrong. I am not a criminal and have been the target of this ridiculous case that has already cost me my marriage and 30 months of my life and counting. I pray for an honest attorney who is at willing to look at this from a legal standpoint. There are many other elements of this case that I will address in other posts. but I felt that the definition of legal process is the center of it all.
Thank you and God Bless all of you for taking the time to read this.
