USDCNDF ECF 9 State V Trussell - Trussell's Response To Yoho Motion To Quash Subpoena

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Case No. 1:16-cv-188-MW-GRJ
v.
TERRY G. TRUSSELL,
Defendant.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM

OF NON-PARTY THE HONORABLE TED S. YOHO
Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
Terry Trussell, files this Response to non-party the Honorable Ted S. Yoho, U.S.
Representative for the 3d congressional district of Florida, Motion to Quash
Subpoena Ad Testificandum (Subpoena) issued to him by defendant Terry G.
Trussell. A copy of the Subpoena was attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion to Quash
filed (DE 3).
A response to the memorandum of points and authorities in support of this
motion is submitted herewith. A proposed order is not attached, and oral argument is
requested ONLY if the court deems fit and proper.
1
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Inger Garcia, Esq.
Inger M. Garcia, Esq.
4839 Volunteer Road; #514
Davie, FL 33330
Florida Bar No. 0106917
Tel: (954) 894-9962
Fax: (954) 446-1635
attorney@ingergarcia.com
Counsel for Defendant, Terry G. Trussell
May 27, 2016
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 27, 2016, I filed one copy of the foregoing
Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum of Non-Party the
Honorable Ted S. Yoho in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
by CM/ECF. I further certify that I served one copy via electronic mail on:
WILLIAM PITTARD, D.C. Bar No. 482949
Acting General Counsel
TODD B. TATELMAN, VA Bar No. 66008
Senior Assistant Counsel
ELENI M. ROUMEL, N.Y. Bar No. 3978863
Assistant Counsel
ISAAC B. ROSENBERG, D.C. Bar No. 998900
Assistant Counsel KIMBERLY HAMM
Assistant Counsel, D.C. Bar No. 1020989 c/o
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-9700 (telephone)
(202) 226-1360 (facsimile) Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov
Counsel for the Honorable Ted S. Yoho, U.S. Representative for the 3d congressional
district of Florida
2
/s/ Inger Garcia, Esq.

Davie, FL 33330
Tel: (954) 894-9962
Fax: (954) 446-1635
May 27, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Case No. 1:16-cv-188-MW-GRJ
v.
TERRY G. TRUSSELL,
Defendant.
RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM

Davie, FL 33330
Tel: (954) 894-9962
Fax: (954) 446-1635
Counsel for Defendant Terry Trussell

May 27, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................2
I.
The Subpoena Must Not Be Quashed on Sovereign Immunity

Grounds .......................................................................................................................4
II.
The Subpoena Must Not Be Quashed Because It Does Seek

Material and Relevant Testimony ............................................................................5
III.
The Subpoena Should Not Be Quashed Because Mr. Trussell Can Establish the
Extraordinary Circumstances Required to Compel Congressman Yohos Testimony
............................................................................................................ 12
CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................23
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
U.S. Constitution and Statutes
28 U.S.C. 1442 ......................................................................................................... 3
Cases
Bardoff v. United States,
628 A.2d 86 (D.C. 1993) ...........................................................................................18
Bogan v. City of Boston,
489 F.3d 417 (1st Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................13
In re FDIC,
58 F.3d 1055 (5th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................19
Marisol A. v. Giuliani,
No. 95-cv-10533 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998) ........................................................... ..19
Matter of Sheeler v. Buffalo Wire Works, 50 Misc.2d 158, 269 N.Y.S.2d 8974
i
Matter of Edge Ho Holding Corp., 256 N.Y. 374, 176 N.E. 5373, 8
People v. Slochowsky,
116 Misc. 2d 1069, 1071, 456 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1019-20 (Sup. Ct.
1982).3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Secy of Labor,
766 F.2d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1985)...................................................................................16
Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union,
No. 89-0073 (D.D.C. May 18, 1989) ........................................................................ 18
United States v. Ballin,
144 U.S. 1 (1892) ........................................................................................................5
United States v. Molinares,
700 F.2d 647 (11th Cir. 1983) ..................................................................................... 5
United States v. Morgan,
313 U.S. 409 (1941) ..................................................................................................12
United States v. Rostenkowski,
59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1995)....................................................................................21
United States v. Smith,
286 U.S. 6 (1932) ........................................................................................................ 5
Walker v. Jones,
733 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1984).....................................................................................17
Wirtz v. Local 30, Intl Union of Operating Engrs,
34 F.R.D. 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1963)..17
Legislative Authorities
Rule VIII, Rules of the House of Representatives (114th Cong.) (2015) .................4, 5
ii
INTRODUCTION
Non-Party the Honorable Ted S. Yoho, U.S. Representative for the 3d
congressional district of Florida, moved this Court for an order quashing the
subpoena ad testificandum issued by the Circuit Court in and for Dixie
County, Florida, Criminal Division and served on him by the defendant, Terry
G. Trussell for a State Criminal Trial on June 6, 2016 through June 10, 2016.
BACKGROUND
The underlying action in this case involves a 14 criminal charges against Mr.
Trussell. State of Florida v. Trussell, Case No. 2014-201- CF (Fla. Cir. Ct.
2014), See Yoho Ex. 1. (DE 3-1). Mr. Trussell obtained a subpoena ad
testificandum (Subpoena) from the state court for a Trial date for the week
of June 6, 2016. See Subpoena, Yoho Ex. 2 (De 3-2).
On April 28, 2016, Congressman Yoho, through counsel, sent counsel for Mr.
Trussell a letter, via electronic and first-class mail, seeking clarification of the
subject matter(s) on which Mr. Trussell demands the Congressmans
testimony. See Letter from Todd B. Tatelman, Sr. Asst Counsel, Office of
Gen. Counsel, to Inger M. Garcia, Esq. (April 28, 2016), Yoho Ex. 3. (DE 33) Mr. Trussells counsel responded by forwarding portions of an email
written by Mr. Trussell, detailing the rationale for the subpoena. See E-mail
from Inger M. Garcia, Esq., to Todd B. Tatelman, Sr. Asst Counsel (May 11,
2016), (Yoho DE 3-4). There were 9 follow up e-mails and a telephone call
1
between counsels concerning this matter. The undersigned reviewed the file,
depositions and exhibits, and located the proof of the urgent need of having
Yoho testify at trial. In all fairness to Yohos counsel, the undersigned was
unable to continue negotiations prior to his having to file this motion and this
is the first time Yohos counsel may know the extent of Yohos importance
and knowledge of the Trussell matter.
The testimony initially outlines was a May 2014 conversation between
Congressman Yoho, Mr. Trussell, and a Colonel Harry Riley (Ret.) that
occurred in Washington. However, based upon evidence secured at the two
depositions of the purported victim SA Jeff Siegmeister, there are many other
issues that are key to this case that Yoho has personal knowledge of.
Composite Exhibit 1 are portions of Siegmeisters two depositions taken
January 2016 and April, 2016, wherein there was testimony concerning Yoho.
Due to time and schedule constraints, Congressman Yoho removed to this
Court on May 25, 2016, see Notice of Removal, and now moves to quash.
ARGUMENT
Mr. Trussells subpoena to Congressman Yoho is enforceable and, therefore,
must not be quashed, for at least three, independent reasons: (1) The doctrine
of sovereign immunity does not bar enforcement of this Subpoena since it
does not seek the protected testimony; (2) the Subpoena does seek material
and relevant information; and (3) Mr. Trussell established the extraordinary
2
circumstances necessary to compel Congressman Yohos testimony. Further,

in summary, 28 USC section 1442, allows removal in regard to a subpoena,
but restricts it to questions relating to the performance of the official duties of
Congressman Yoho. Trussell and the undersigned certify that the examination
will not relate to the performance of any function as a congressman. It will be
prejudicial to the Defenses ability to competently represent Trussell if the
undersigned is required to disclose to Congressman Yoho as a witness
beforehand and to the prosecutor the questions that the defense intends to ask
-- beyond the fact that the Defense will not question Yoho about his
congressional duties. To ask for a disclosure would be a denial of procedural
due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. People v. Slochowsky, 116
Misc. 2d 1069, 1071, 456 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1019-20 (Sup. Ct. 1982) held: The
reason for the rule is that on a motion to quash a subpoena, the relevancy of
the purported testimony cannot be challenged was best stated by Mr. Justice
Cardoza in Matter of Edge Ho Holding Corp., 256 N.Y. 374, 176 N.E. 537.
The court in discussing the power to issue a subpoena ad testificandum stated,
They (the power to subpoena) will be rendered to a large extent abortive if
his subpoenas are to be quashed in advance of any hearing at the instance of
unwilling witnesses upon forecasts of the testimony and nicely balanced
arguments as to its probable importance. (pg. 381, 176 N.E. 537) (emphasis
3
supplied). The court thus felt that prophesying the probable importance of a
witness would in effect destroy the very power to subpoena. (See also Matter
of Sheeler v. Buffalo Wire Works, 50 Misc.2d 158, 269 N.Y.S.2d 897)
I.
The Subpoena Must Not Be Quashed on Sovereign Immunity Grounds.

The subpoena served on Congressman Yoho is directed to him for his
personal knowledge of facts, meetings, telephone calls and e-mails, at relate
to him personally, as well as under his authority to speak to his constituents,
in his official capacity. It does not relate to any official duties at all. The emails at issue are from his personal e-mail and the meetings took place on his
personal time and location choice, outside his workplace. Congress has no
need to waive sovereign immunity in this case since there are no official
actions at issue in this case. The House Rule VIII.8, Rules of the House of
Representatives (114th Cong.) (2015), does not apply to this case as it does
not have a privilege in relation to Yohos personal knowledge, personal email and personal conversations. There is no action to be taken by the House
in relation to Yohos testimony in this matter. His designation as
Congressman was a professional courtesy and one letter at issue was
addressed to him as such. Accordingly, the Subpoena must not be quashed
based on sovereign immunity.
II.
The Subpoena Must Not Be Quashed Because It Does Seek Material and
Relevant Testimony.
House Rule VIII does not apply as the requested testimony of Yoho, as
it does not relate to the official functions of the House. House Rule VIII.1.
House Rule VIII. There is no challenge to the House or its official actions, as
distinguished from United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892); see also
United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6, 33 (1932) cited by Yohos counsel.
House Rule VIII.3 authorizes congressional employees to respond to
properly issued subpoenas only if, among other things, the information sought
is material and relevant. Here the requesting testimony is material and
relevant. See United States v. Molinares, 700 F.2d 647, 653 (11th Cir. 1983)
(In this circuit, [t]he test for materiality is whether [the information at issue]
was capable of influencing the tribunal on the issue before it.). The
testimony requested of Yoho here will clearly be relevant to the underlying
tribunal and jury deciding the matter. If it is determined, although it is not,
and the Subpoena relates to Congressman Yohos official functions,
Congressman Yoho is authorized by House Rules to comply with the
Subpoena if the testimony sought is material and relevant. House Rule
VIII.3. All testimony Congressman Yoho is relevant, and material, to the
criminal indictment against Mr. Trussell, as set forth below. The extent of
Yohos knowledge and involvement is much more than one conversation in
5
DC. It goes to the heart of the intent, credibility, injury, impeachment of

victim, the numerous defenses, including good-faith and immunity, and the
first amendment rights to assemble and express opinions, as well as potential
improper arrest and incarceration of Trussell.
Congressman Yoho has personal knowledge related to the necessary conduct
of Trussell and Siegmeister.
The allegation that since the criminal information has been filed, Yoho has not
had any significant contact with Mr. Trussell is in contradiction of the
documents produced by, and the deposition testimony of Siegmeister, as well
as the testimony of Dowdell and others who were present at meetings, and the
e-mails and letters. See Composite Exhibit 2 for the relevant E-mails and letter.
Yohos testimony will produce admissible evidence at trial.
Relevancy- Slochowsky Case
In Slochowsky, the County district attorney brought a motion to quash a
subpoena served upon her by attorneys for defendants on grounds that the
testimony was irrelevant and privileged. The Supreme Court, Trial Term,
Kings County, Gerald Adler, J., held that: (1) privilege is not a proper issue
raised on a motion to quash a subpoena ad testificandum; (2) relevancy is not
an issue which may be raised by a motion to quash a subpoena ad
testificandum; and (3) defendants had a right to adduce the relevant and
6
material evidence that the district attorney might have. People v.

Slochowsky, 116 Misc.2d 1069 (1982), 456 N.Y.S.2d 1018, Kings County,
New York, Trial Term, Part 24.
Privilege is not a proper issue raised on a motion to quash a subpoena ad
testificandum since privilege may not be asserted in advance of question
actually propounded; rather, proper method of asserting privilege is upon
witness taking the witness stand and being asked questions regarding any
privileged matter. Id. In Slochowsky, the court further found that the proper
method of asserting privilege is upon the witness taking the witness stand and
being asked questions regarding any privileged matter. (Matter of Pennock v.
Lane, 18 A.D.2d 1043, 1044, 238 N.Y.S.2d 588; Matter of Bonanno v. Ryan,
18 Misc.2d 711, 190 N.Y.S.2d 508, affd. 9 A.D.2d 605, 191 N.Y.S.2d 356).
Further, relevancy is not an issue which may be raised by a motion to quash a
subpoena ad testificandum, since a motion to quash can only raise validity of
the subpoena or jurisdiction of the issuing authority. Id. In Slochowsky, the
County district attorney was not entitled to have quashed subpoena ad
testificandum served upon her by attorney for defendants on ground that
testimony was irrelevant where it could not be said that the subpoena was
issued for purposes of harassment, there was good-faith basis for issuance of the
subpoena, and affidavit of district attorney was insufficient to show that she
lacked relevant evidence, since defendants had a right to adduce relevant and
7
material evidence which district attorney might have. Id.

With regard to relevancy the court in Santangello v. People, 38 N.Y.2d 536
stated at page 539, 381 N.Y.S.2d 472, 344 N.E.2d 404, A motion to quash is
limited in scope, challenging only the validity of the subpoena or the
jurisdiction of the issuing authority... (emphasis supplied) It would appear
that a motion to quash can only raise the validity of the subpoena
or the
jurisdiction of the issuing authority. Id.

The reason for the rule that on a motion to quash a subpoena the relevancy of
the purported testimony cannot be challenged was best stated by Mr. Justice
Cardoza in Matter of Edge Ho Holding Corp., 256 N.Y. 374, 176 N.E. 537.
The court in discussing the power to issue a subpoena ad testificandum stated,
They (the power to subpoena) will be rendered to a large extent abortive if
his subpoenas are to be quashed in advance of any hearing at the instance
of unwilling witnesses upon forecasts of the testimony and nicely balanced
arguments as to its probable importance. (pg. 381, 176 N.E. 537)
(emphasis supplied). The court thus felt that prophesying the probable
importance of a witness would in effect destroy the very power to subpoena
(See also Matter of Sheeler v. Buffalo Wire Works, 50 Misc.2d 158, 269
N.Y.S.2d 897) Id.
In this regard the court notes the cases of People v. McClinton, 75 A.D.2d
900, 428 N.Y.S.2d 61 leave to appeal denied, 51 N.Y.2d 882, and People v.
Forbes, 87 A.D.2d 829, 449 N.Y.S.2d 9. In both those cases the Appellate
Division stated that The right to present evidence by witnesses of one's own
choosing is a fundamental ingredient of due process (Jenkins v. McKeithan, 395
U.S. 411, 429, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1852, 23 L.Ed.2d 404), and the testimony of a
defendant's witness should not be prospectively excluded unless it is offered in
palpably bad faith... (People v. Forbes, 87 A.D.2d at page 829, 449 N.Y.S.2d
9 and People v. McClinton, 75 A.D.2d at page 900, 428 N.Y.S.2d 61). In effect
what the District Attorney is attempting to accomplish is to have this court
prospectively exclude testimony of a defendant's witness. This appears to be a
violation of the right of a defendant to present evidence by witnesses of his own
choosing. In both of the above cases the Appellate Court criticized the trial
court for requiring a showing of relevance regarding a defendant's witness. In
this case the District Attorney seeks to quash the subpoena on the grounds of
relevance. This court does not see any distinction between what the District
Attorney seeks to do and that which the Appellate Division, 2d Department has
criticized and found to be unacceptable. The court found that a claim of
irrelevancy cannot be used on a motion to quash a subpoena. Id.
However, since there is apparently a legitimate reading of People v.

Fleschner, supra and dicta in Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d, 314, 383
N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d 915, supra that may indicate that relevancy is a
proper issue for a motion to quash, this court will address that issue. In
DelVecchio v. White Plains Unit, 64 A.D.2d 975, 408 N.Y.S.2d 802, the
Mayor and Council Members were subpoenaed to appear in an Administrative
proceeding. The Mayor and Council Members petitioned Special Term to
quash the subpoena, and the motion to quash was granted. The Appellate
Division, 2d Department in reversing Special Term, stated at page 976, 408
N.Y.S.2d 802, We therefore do not agree with Special Term's conclusion that
there is credence to the charge that [the union's purpose] was to harass the
busy men and women who are the Mayor and Council Members of the City of
White Plains'. But even if it could *1074 be plausibly argued that this were
so, that in itself would not justify suppression of the subpoenas as a matter
of law at this time (See Matter ofCunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314,
318, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d 915). An attorney has a presumptive right
to issue a subpoena (CPLR 2302) and this applies to attendance in an
administrative as well as a judicial proceeding (citations omitted). Id.
To require the defendants under these conditions to accept the affidavit
without giving the court the opportunity to observe the witness and without
giving the opportunity to the attorneys to question the witness would appear to
10
this court, to be in violation of the defendants' right to confront witnesses

against them. Id. This court, from the outset, has also stated that it considers
the claim made in the moving papers in the first allegation of prosecutorial
misconduct to include a claim not only under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
but under both State and Federal due process. In this regard, the court has, on
several occasions early in the proceedings, stated that it considered this
proceeding in the nature of an Isaacson hearing, State v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d
511, 406 N.Y.S.2d 714, 378 N.E.2d 78. Isaacson is not limited to the particular
facts of the case as claimed by the District Attorney. In People v. Rao, 73
A.D.2d 88, 425 N.Y.S.2d 122, the court extended the Isaacson doctrine to
impropriety by the special prosecutor. In People v. Mason, 97 Misc.2d 706, 411
N.Y.S.2d 970, the court extended the Isaacson doctrine to a situation whether
there was interference with a right to counsel. Id. The court notes that a written
motion has been submitted to amend the defendants' papers to reflect all
previous discussions in this area. The People have had notice for almost six
weeks of the very nature of this proceeding. In this regard it is relevant to an
Isaacson hearing whether there has been a pattern of misconduct on the part of
the District Attorney not only in this matter but in other similar matters. (People
v. Schwartz, App.Div., 1982, 455 N.Y.S.2d 650). Many authors have attributed
the leading case of Miranda to the fact that the court considered prior situations
where police abused the defendants' rights. The court, after considering other
11
cases, decided that corrective action was necessary. The policies both before
and after the plea herein are relevant in determining the sanctions to be imposed,
if in fact there is a violation of the defendants' rights. This court at this time,
has not determined whether there has been such a violation. The court further
finds, after seven weeks of hearings, that the District Attorney may have relevant
and material evidence which the defendants have a right to adduce at this
hearing. For all reasons herein, the motion to quash the subpoena is denied.
Id.
Based on the relevancy argument as set forth above, Trussell has met his burden
of proof as to the relevancy.
III.
The Subpoena Should Not Be Quashed Because Mr. Trussell Can

Establish the Extraordinary Circumstances Required to Compel
Congressman Yohos Testimony.
As cited by Yohos counsel, United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409,
422 (1941) is distinguishable in that we are not seeking any testimony in
relation to any proceeding or administrative orders.
As cited by Yohos counsel, In re United States (Kessler), 985 F.2d
510, 513 (11th Cir. 1993) ordered district court to quash subpoena of highranking government official called to testify as witness; Because of the time
constraints and multiple responsibilities of high officials, courts discourage
parties from calling them as witnesses and require exigent circumstances to
justify a request for their testimony.
12
In this matter the Defendant Trussell will absolutely agree to this Court
Staying the State case until Yoho is available and it does not interfere with his
duties as a high official. Further, to distinguish Bogan v. City of Boston, 489
F.3d 417, 423 (1st Cir. 2007), Trussell is not seeking the reasons for Yoho
taking official action, we are seeking the personal knowledge of Yoho in
relation to at least four known conversations, numerous e-mails, deposition
testimony of the victim, and a letter addressed to Yoho concerning Trussell.
The relevant conversations are summarized herein and in the Exhibits
attached, as Composite Exhibits 1 and 2.
There are extraordinary circumstances requiring the discovery sought
from Yoho in that he is the only one that can testify to the four conversations
he partook in with Trussell, Siegmeister, and Dowdell, can authenticate
documents, can express Trussells statements to him and his to others, can
explain the sovereign citizen theory that he was told by Siegmeister, which
may have changed his position or warned him off, as well as other relevant
and necessary testimony. These witnesses cannot testify to hearsay comments
at a criminal trial and the only one who can testify to Yohos knowledge and
documents is Yoho.
Brief Summary of Conversations And Evidence
First conversation of May 2014 in D.C. is summarized in the Exhibit to
Yohos Motion which was addressed, which goes to the intent of Trussell.
13
The second relevant conversations was in a meeting with Ted Yoho,

around 7 P.M., October, 14 2014, between Rodger Dowdell, Marie Trussell,
Canetha Dodd, and Rodger Dowdell, an administrator for Floridas Common
Law Grand Jury movement. They met with Yoho and presented him with the
circumstances of Trussells arrest for failure to appear in court, while standing
in court, five minutes before court was noticed to begin. More than 50 witness
affidavits (previously filed with a motion to recuse and otherwise with
administrative agencies) confirm the events of October 9, 2014, when Trussell
was effectively deprived of his constitutional rights by order of the judge,
forcing his absence from his noticed court appearance. Subsequent discovery
has revealed a possible concerted effort involving numerous persons to affect
the possible pre-planned arrest in the courtroom, in front of more than a
hundred witnesses. Ted Yoho at that meeting, emphatically committed to Mr.
Dowdell, that he would help Trussell.
A third meeting took place with Yoho at the Brass Monkey,
Gainesville, FL, on or about May 23, 2015, Trussells wife, Marie, and
Trussell met with Ted Yoho to bring him up to date on the progress of the
defense against States prosecution. During the discussion, many details of
how the defense were developing and how discovery was revealing State had
not conducted any substantive investigation of the case, or had any
understanding of the circumstances surrounding the charges were discussed,
14
since the grand jury information was hidden. Yoho was very attentive and
understood the points made. Again, Yoho expressed his sympathy to the
Trussell family plight and offered to consider anything he could do to help.
There were also two conversations with the purported victim
Siegmeister as testified by him in his two deposition excerpts attached, as well
as the documents (e-mails, letter, promises to assist) produced to the Defense
in this matter by Siegmeister. See Composite Exhibits 1 and 2 attached.
Siegmeister testified to Yohos involvements and knowledge, which is
extremely important to numerous defenses and negating elements of the the
criminal charges in the state case.
Further, Yoho is the only one that can confirm his e-mail agreeing to
assist Trussell, to the now deceased witness Roy Callahan. This e-mail was
produced to the Defense from the purported victim Jeffrey Siegmeister, who
is also the State Attorney of the 3rd Judicial Circuit in Florida. Callahan was
previously listed as a Defense Witness. Yoho is the only witness who can
verify and testify to the authenticity of this e-mails due to the death of the
recipient.
Further, in his deposition, Siegmeister testified to warning off
Yoho from helping Trussell, due in part to philosophy and Siegmeister
provided e-mails and a letter to Yoho from now deceased Callahan. Attached
as Composite Exhibit 1 is the E-mail chain, and the letter to Yoho, including
15
Yohos assistance offer to Trussell. Apparently, Yoho was warned off

helping Trussell by the purported victim, Siegmeister, in this fourteen felony
count criminal case in which Trussell is looking at the potential of 70 years in
prison. This issue goes to intent and credibility and potential violations of
interference with the Defense. Also attached are excerpts from the two
deposition of Jeff Siegmeister (Composite Exhibit 1), in which Yoho and
(Composite Exhibit 2 the related documents) are discussed. The undersigned
apologizes for the darkness of the letter, but this is how the production, via
camera, was reproduced.
This case is distinguishable from Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Secy of
Labor, 766 F.2d 575, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1985), in that we are seeking Yohos
personal knowledge of relevant conversations with Trussell and Siegmeister,
as well as his resulting personal actions due to the warning off by
Siegmeister, not any official actions of the Government.
Yoho is the local representative of Dixie County, where Trussell resides, and
he is up for re-election in a newly defined district, not including Dixie
County. However, at the time of the conversations, e-mails and potential
threats to, or warning off, Yoho was the representative of Dixie County.
The circumstances are extraordinary in that the knowledge is personal to
Yoho, and the warning off may have significantly influenced Yohos
personal actions. Yoho also has personal knowledge of Trussells case, from
16
meeting with Trussell again, after Trussell was arrested in court at his
arraignment, for failure to appear, five minutes prior to the noticed hearing.
Yoho was shown the video of this in-court arrest for failure to appear and
Yohos testimony is crucial.
According to, Wirtz v. Local 30, Intl Union of Operating Engrs, 34 F.R.D.
13, 14 (S.D.N.Y. 1963), a clear showing is made herein that Yohos
attendance at Trial is essential to prevent prejudice or injustice to Trussell.
Yohos testimony goes to the intent of Trussell, Trussells statements to
Yoho, authentication of Yohos statements and e-mails, to the potential
impeachment of the only purported victim who is attending the trial, and to
Yohos conversations with Siegmeister; all of which may exonerate Trussell.
For Trussell to be forced to continually disclose this much information, over
and over again, is a clear violation of Trussells due process rights. However,
to respond this this Motion, Trussell has once again disclosed relevant
Defense information to protect Trussells rights, although it violates Trussells
due process rights. Because this is a case involving mostly Public Officials,
Trussell is continually denied his due process rights by being forced to
disclose, in advance, his strategies and anticipated witness testimony and
areas of questioning. This is yet again, another example of Trussell being
deprived of his due process rights and proper trial preparation, by compelling
Trussell to address peripheral issues.
17
Members of Congress may be covered in a matter as to which he has

only a tangential association would unduly burden his ability to fulfill his
governmental responsibilities, however, the exceptional circumstances have
been presented herein.
As cited by Yohos attorney, Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. United
Transp. Union, No. 89- misc-0073, 1989 WL 225031, at *2 (D.D.C. May 18,
1989) is distinguishable as that related to a deposition or producing
documents because discovery would disrupt [his] work as the ranking
Minority Member of the House Appropriations Committee. However, this is
a major criminal Trial wherein Trussell will die in prison if he loses at trail
due to the deprivation of his due process and ability to subpoena witnesses,
and as a result is sentenced to 22 or 70 years, as Trussell is 72 years old. This
subpoena is not to inconvenience the work schedule of Yoho. Trussell again
states unequivocally that he requests that the Trial be stayed by this
Honorable Court until such time witness Yoho is available, and it does not
interfere with his important work schedule. Trussell needs Yoho at his trial.
Contrary to Yohos position, Bardoff v. United States, 628 A.2d 86, 90
(D.C. 1993) is not applicable as there are not others who were present at the
meetings, telephone call or e-mail, who did not hold such high office and who
could testify to Yohos knowledge. The policy reason that the practice of
calling high officials as witnesses should be discouraged is that [h]igh
18
ranking government officials have greater duties and time constraints

than other witnesses. In re United States (Kessler), 985 F.2d at 512 does not
apply to this circumstance of Yohos personal knowledge, meetings, e-mails
and involvement. There should be no greater duty than protecting the life and
liberty of his constituents.
Additionally, the e-mail used by Yoho is his personal e-mail address
tsyoho@cox.net, and his actions, meetings, and promises were of a more
personal nature and not involved with Government operations, decisionmaking, or sovereignty. See Exhibit 1 page 3. The meetings all took place in
arenas outside of Yohos official scope of business as set forth above.
As to the Three factors in the case law set forth by Yohos Counsel, at
least three factors must be present before extraordinary circumstances can be
found: (i) the information sought must not be obtainable elsewhere; (ii) the
information sought must be essential (not merely relevant) to the partys case;
and (iii) provision of the testimony must not interfere with the officials
government responsibilities. See, e.g., In re FDIC, 58 F.3d at 1060-62;
Marisol A. v. Giuliani, No. 95-cv-10533, 1998 WL 132810, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 23, 1998)
Mr. Trussell has shown his special need or situation compelling Yohos
testimony is essential to Trussells case and that this evidence is not available
through any alternative source or less burdensome means.
19
In response to Yohos attorneys first factor, Mr. Trussell has

demonstrated above that Congressman Yoho possesses material and relevant
information, not obtainable elsewhere. The representations that Yoho has no
first-hand, personal knowledge that bears on the alleged conduct at issue is
incorrect. Yohos attorneys comments that common sense dictates that any
such information more readily would be available from other individuals,
including, but not limited to, Mr. Trussell himself or Colonel Harry Riley
(Ret.), who Mr. Trussell indicated was a participant in the referenced
conversation is incorrect. Hearsay is not admissible in the criminal case
without proper exception or exemption and Yohos statements, e-mails,
conversations are exclusively his testimony. Mr. Trussell has met the burden
of making the necessary showing that the information is not available
elsewhere. Once again, in all fairness to Yohos counsel, this is the first time
he is receiving these documents in the Exhibit 1, due in part to time
constraints preparing for an imminent trial in order to save the life of Trussell,
and due in part to Trussells due process rights being violated by having to
disclose information in advance again and again and again in this criminal
matter.
With respect to the second factor, Yoho has personal knowledge of the
actions for which Mr. Trussell has been charged, he has had numerous
conversations, reviewed the video of previous court hearings, met with
20
Trussell and Dowdell for hours discussing this matter directly, has had
conversations with Siegmeister, sent an e-mail he was going to assist Trussell,
has received letters from others in relation to Trussell, etc. Mr. Trussell has
demonstrated why the testimony he seeks from Congressman Yoho is
essential (and not merely relevant) to his case.
With respect to the third factor, there is no dispute that compliance with
the Subpoena would interfere with the official responsibilities of
Congressman Yoho. The D.C. Circuit has noted that service in the United
States Congress is not a job like any other. United States v. Rostenkowski, 59
F.3d 1291, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 1995). [T]he life of a congressman-as incumbent
legislator and perpetual candidate for office is one in which the Members
official day ends only after a round of nominally social events at which he
is obliged to appear, and whose weekends and holidays are only an
opportunity to reconnect with his constituents. Id. This aptly pertains to
Congressman Yoho. However, this does not excuse Yoho from testifying, it
only changes the potential time of the testimony. Trussell requests this
Honorable Court to Stay the State Case or to Remove the State Case in order
that Yoho can honor his obligations and Trussell can have a fair trial.
According to Yohos counsel, during the week of June 6, 2016, the date
for which Congressman Yoho is subpoenaed to testify, Congress is scheduled
to be in session, meaning that Congressman Yoho is required by House Rule
21
to be present to cast votes on the floor of the House. See House Rule III.1.
Again, Trussell reiterates that Yohos testimony is needed at trial and Trussell
requests that this Honorable Court stay the State Case to allow Yoho to
complete his duties and then when available, the trial can be either removed to
federal court or reset. The State Court has been quashing subpoenas
constantly without regard to Trussells constitutional rights, and without
regard to Trussells due process rights, mostly without properly noticed
hearing, without hearing, without an opportunity to be heard, and demanding
very specific factual nature and line of information against Trussells due
process rights. Trussell will never have a fair trial under the circumstances
given the political nature, the venue, the constant deprivation of his
constitutional and due process rights. All Trussell is seeking is the ability to
present a case, examine and cross examine relevant witnesses, effective
assistance of counsel, and his constitutional rights not being trampled as they
have been. Even in this response Trussell has been forced to disclosure
information he should never have been forced to disclose, as it violates his
due process rights. However, to aid this Court in understanding the extend and
necessity of Yohos testimony, it has been disclosed to Trussells detriment, if
the case remains in the State Court, where the prosecutor and purported victim
can prepare using this information that would have never been disclosed
except for this response.
22
For all these reasons, Mr. Trussell has demonstrated, that sufficiently
extraordinary circumstances are present here, and, therefore, the Subpoena
should not be quashed; however the state criminal trial should be stayed to
allow Yoho to perform his duties as required by law.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny Non-Party
Congressman Ted Yohos motion to quash in part and grant it in part. It
should be granted as to the timing, by ordering the trial court to stay the trial
until such time Yoho is available to testify, however the subpoena must not be
quashed in full.
23
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This memorandum complies with the type-volume limitations of Local
Rule 7.1(F) because it contains 6,652 words, excluding parts of the
memorandum exempted by Local Rule 7.1(F). This memorandum also has
been prepared in 14- point Times New Roman type and is double-spaced
between lines under Local Rule 5.1(C).
/s/ Inger Garcia,Esq.

Davie, FL 33330
Tel: (954) 894-9962
Fax: (954) 446-1635
May 27, 2016
24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 27, 2016, I filed one copy of the foregoing
Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida by CM/ECF. I further
certify that I served one copy via electronic mail on:
WILLIAM PITTARD, D.C. Bar No. 482949

Acting General Counsel
TODD B. TATELMAN, VA Bar No. 66008
Senior Assistant Counsel
ELENI M. ROUMEL, N.Y. Bar No. 3978863
Assistant Counsel
ISAAC B. ROSENBERG, D.C. Bar No. 998900
Assistant Counsel KIMBERLY HAMM
Assistant Counsel, D.C. Bar No. 1020989 c/o
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-9700 (telephone)
(202) 226-1360 (facsimile) Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov
Counsel for the Honorable Ted S. Yoho, U.S. Representative for the 3d
congressional district of Florida
/s/ Inger Garcia

Inger Garcia, Esq.
25
Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 27

USDCNDF ECF 9 State V Trussell - Trussell's Response To Yoho Motion To Quash Subpoena

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USDCNDF ECF 9 State V Trussell - Trussell's Response To Yoho Motion To Quash Subpoena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 31

/s/ Inger Garcia, Esq.

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

Inger M. Garcia, Esq.

Counsel for Defendant Terry Trussell

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 31

The Subpoena Must Not Be Quashed on Sovereign Immunity

The Subpoena Must Not Be Quashed Because It Does Seek

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 7 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 8 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 9 of 31

circumstances necessary to compel Congressman Yohos testimony. Further,

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 10 of 31

The Subpoena Must Not Be Quashed on Sovereign Immunity Grounds.

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 11 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 12 of 31

DC. It goes to the heart of the intent, credibility, injury, impeachment of

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 13 of 31

material evidence that the district attorney might have. People v.

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 14 of 31

material evidence which district attorney might have. Id.

jurisdiction of the issuing authority. Id.

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 15 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 16 of 31

However, since there is apparently a legitimate reading of People v.

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 17 of 31

this court, to be in violation of the defendants' right to confront witnesses

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 18 of 31

The Subpoena Should Not Be Quashed Because Mr. Trussell Can

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 19 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 20 of 31

The second relevant conversations was in a meeting with Ted Yoho,

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 21 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 22 of 31

Yohos assistance offer to Trussell. Apparently, Yoho was warned off

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 23 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 24 of 31

Members of Congress may be covered in a matter as to which he has

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 25 of 31

ranking government officials have greater duties and time constraints

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 26 of 31

In response to Yohos attorneys first factor, Mr. Trussell has

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 27 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 28 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 29 of 31

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 30 of 31

/s/ Inger Garcia,Esq.

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 31 of 31

WILLIAM PITTARD, D.C. Bar No. 482949

/s/ Inger Garcia

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 27

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 27

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 27

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 27

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 27

Case 1:16-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 9-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 27