After a long and drawn out dog and pony show by the State of Florida, and much help from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida in Lee County I was convicted on 19 fabricated changes of simulating the legal process. They piled on a mountain of so-called evidence, much of it having nothing to do with the actual charges. Judge George C. Richards a Charlotte County judge from the same 20th Circuit, was given the special assignment to ensure I was completely railroaded. They piled on a mountain of so-called evidence, much of it having nothing to do with the actual charges. Judge George Richards, a Charlotte County judge from the same 20th Circuit, was given the special assignment to ensure I was completely railroaded. He lined me up so the State could finish me off with a bogus conviction. The first judge, Margaret Steinbeck, removed herself from the case in December of 2018, after cancelling the previously scheduled trial in November of 2018 at the State’s request, and just one day prior to the scheduled start date. Steinbeck was the judge on my case for more than two years, and while I felt that I was being treated unfairly by her, she was an angel next to Judge George Richards. It was clear that Richards had it out for me from the first time I stepped into his courtroom on February 8, 2019. That day he denied my motion to reduce bond, keeping my excessive bond at a whopping $1.5 million, twenty times hirer than the county’s standard bond schedule. He also entered multiple orders (2/12/19 and 6/17/19) stating that as an indigent pro se defendant I was not entitled to access to a law library or free legal research. So much for meaningful access to the law.
Judge Richards also denied my motion to disqualify judge in accordance to Rule 2.330 of Florida Rules of Judicial Procedure, he denied my motion to change venue due to unfair bias toward the alleged victims, who are his judge colleagues, he denied my motion to suppress evidence for an unlawful search, and he denied every other motion I filed. He even blocked and limited due process services to keep me from investigating the State’s discovery evidence. He allowed the State to use unauthenticated email evidence but refused my own email evidence. When all was said and done, I was unable to enter a single piece of evidence during my case-in-chief.
The jury clearly didn’t understand the charges, and the state misused the statute with their own interpretation. The jury was never properly explained the charges, they were only told I was guilty. Because I am not a trial attorney and felt I had no option except to represent myself, I made some procedural errors that kept me from putting up a stronger defense. However, it is hard to see that it would have made any difference because my standby counsel (who I brought on for assistance during trial) was shut down by the Court as well. On July 18, 2019, I was found guilty on all charges, and on September 13, 2019 I was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Without a criminal history, the State successfully created a case using a newer statute and piled on a ton of charges to inflate my points from 0 to 560 in order to take my life away. Case closed.
Needless to say, I have begun the appeal process, but I do have concerns that the corrupt judges from Lee County have friends at the 2nd District Court of Appeals who will uphold their crimes against me and force me to the higher courts. I feel there are a ton of grounds for appeal, including wrongful conviction and illegal sentence. I was denied the right to face my accusers, with five of the alleged victims failing to testify at trial, and no sworn written statements provided by any of them. I was convicted on those five counts anyway.
All of the charges against me were for simulating the legal process, which first requires a legal process to exist. I was charged with Florida Statute 843.0855, which provides a clear definition of what a legal process is. The accusations in the charging Information do not fit the description of legal process. It all should have stopped right there. but the state continued using is endless resources to create something that doesn’t exist. Here is the definition of “legal process”:
A document or order issued by a court or file 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 specific act. “Legal Process” includes, but is not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena or order.
MISUSE OF STATUTE
I was charged, convicted and sentenced in counts 1-8, which alleged that I created and/or file federal arrest warrants signed by Joel Soucy, and filed as an evidence exhibit into his civil case 15-CA-03512. According to the definition of legal process, the mere preparation and signing of Mr. Soucy’s federal arrest warrants is not a legal process. In order to simulate a legal process those warrants would have to be issued by a court of this state or the United states or with a governmental entity of this state or the United states. This is not the case, as they were issued by Joel Soucy and not a court or governmental entity.
During a November 20, 2018 hearing on my motion to dismiss, the state argued that these documents became a legal process when they were filed as evidence exhibits into Mr. Soucy’s civil case as stated above. The problem with that is that the definition of legal process states that a document would need to be “filed or recorded with an official court 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 refrain from performing a specific act.” Mr. Soucy’s federal warrants as evidence exhibits can do none of those things. In addition, Mr. Soucy’s proposed federal arrest warrants have no jurisdiction in the state court and therfore cannot exercise jurisdiction, represent a claim, direct a person to appear before a court or tribunal or refrain from performing a spcific act. An evidence exhibit can only provide information supporting the document it is attached to, and I was not charged with that document. This argument was presented to the Court on November 20, 2018, but Judge Margaret Steinbeck denied the motion claiming that the exhibits provided by the State’s motion to strike were legal processes. This is not possible because the exhibits Mrs. Steinbeck referred to were not previously recorded into any court, except as an exhibit by the State. Wouldn’t this mean that the State actually simulated the legal process with fraudulent documents? In any event, Judge Steinbeck in her ruling made a special exception for the State and actually assisted them in misusing the statute for their personal vendetta.
ILLEGAL SENTENCE (DOUBLE JEOPARDY)
In addition to not being able to face my accusers, and being wrongly charged, convicted and sentenced on a misinterpreted law, it appears that the Court has violated the double jeopardy clause. The State used a few single episodes and created 19 charges from them. Case law has ruled that a person can’t be charged multiple times for a single action and episode, even if there were multiple alleged victims. For example, the 8 federal arrest warrants I was charged, convicted and sentenced on were entered into Joel Soucy’s case as a single exhibit and single episode. So, even if the State and Court want to call this a legal process (despite the inability of those documents to exercise jurisdiction), this violates the double jeopardy clause and should not have been more than a single charge. That means that at the very least I was illegally sentenced on 7 of those 8 counts.
I won’t get into all of the details right now, but the same issues of legal process and double jeopardy exist in the remaining counts, 11-19. Not to mention that the state failed to prove exactly what made the documents fraudulent, and show any criminal intent existed. The case against me had a predetermined outcome, and the State and court did all they could to deny me my rights and guarantee that outcome.
