Susan Mokdad is one of the convicted defendants in the Florida Common Law Court Trial. Not that it was tried by Common Law, for, most assuredly, it was not. Rather, it was tried in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

 Susan is a friend from many years ago. Between Susan, and her father, Emilio Ippolito, I learned how to represent myself in legal matters, including the courtroom. The education they provided me has served me well. I have done far better than I ever had with an attorney, and have prevailed in every matter in court.

 There can be little doubt that Susan would be qualified to defend herself in the Obstruction of Justice trial.

 Judge Merryday, however, for whatever reason, refused to let Susan represent herself. Only two defendants were allowed to enter the proceedings without an attorney. Toby Brown was acquitted and Douglas Carpa continues to represent himself – though still in prison.

 Susan, instead of being allowed the Constitutional Right of self-representation, was saddled with an attorney named Ron Smith.

 Mr. Smith has had a couple of controversies develop about his representation. I am going to discuss the one that is now of record. You may be surprised, however, even after reading the record, to find that, though the case is clear that Smith, or Juror 505 (Matthew Finch) lied. sworn, on the record, and the court – which is willing to imprison people on charges of Obstruction of Justice – continues to Obstruct Justice with means and influence far greater than the alleged defendants could ever possibly muster.

 All quotes from the record are verbatim, out of the Transcript of an evidentiary hearing conduct in Merryday’s court – on remand from an Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

 It had become known that there was some sort of communication between Ron Smith and Matthew Finch. Finch was an “innominate juror” (anonymous; hidden; secret) who was assured that he would have his identity withheld from the defendants and the public. The Outpost of Freedom, however, once it was found that a juror had served on the jury illegally, managed to identify the juror (Finch) and publish his “rap sheet” on the Outpost of Freedom web site. This set the stage for an airing of whether Finch was an illegal juror – in violation of federal jury laws, as a result of plea bargaining to a felony, or not. The remand from the Eleventh Circuit was based upon the fact that the defendants were not able to review the records, background or even the names of the jurors.

 There was a hearing on August 13, 2002, to enter a record of any evidence regarding the possibility of Finch serving illegally. In that hearing, a meeting between Finch and Smith is questioned. (Underling, for emphasis, is mine. opf)

 Questioning Ron Smith is Tiffany Craig, Susan’s new attorney (from page 36 of the transcript):

 RON SMITH, DEFENSE WITNESS, SWORN

     THE COURT: All right. Please, sir, have a seat in

the witness stand. Mr. Watts is there to assist you. And I

will recognize Ms. Craig for your direct examination.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

     BY MS. CRAIG:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning. ma'am.

Q. Could you please state your occupation, Mr. Smith.

A. I'm an attorney.

Q. And how long have you been a practicing attorney in the

State of Florida?

A. 17 years.

Q. And licensed to practice in the Middle District?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And how long have you been licensed to practice in the

Middle District?

A. 17 years.

Q. You represented a Susan Mokdad in a lengthy trial back

in 1997; is that correct?

A. Yes. ma'am: 10 weeks.

Q. The jury in that trial was what was classified as an

innominate jury; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. After the trial did you become aware of the name or

names of one or more of the jurors?

A. I became aware of the name of one juror in that case.

Q. And would that be Juror 505?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Was this at a time where the possible juror misconduct

had been realized?

A. I realized that there was the potential for juror

misconduct on the part of that juror; yes.

Q. And Juror 505, that is Matthew Finch; is that correct?

A. That's the name that I learned, yes, ma'am.

* * *

(from page 36 of the transcript)

Q. Did you try and contact Matthew Finch?

A. Did I try to contact? No, I responded to a contact or

an advance that was made by that juror.

Q. Could you explain that to the court.

A. I can't remember the date, but I do remember I was on

my way to court from Pasco County where I reside -­-

     THE COURT: Was it before or after you ordered that

transcript?

     THE WITNESS: I can't remember, Judge. I think it

would have been after.

     But I did in fact have indirect contact with him

when I was on the way to court. My car broke down, the

clutch had broken, and I had parked my car at a Blockbuster

parking lot at Enterprise and McMullen-Booth Road. Fear of

it being towed, I put my card, my business card, on the

dashboard, with my cell phone number and my numbers,

whatever they were.

I got a ride to court. I sent my mechanic out to

work on my car. My mechanic informed me that he was

approached by a gentleman and said is this Ron Smith’s car?

He says yes. And he said, well, I'm 505. I know him. I was

in a trial with him for a long period of time. And he

mentioned that he was working at the Blockbuster Video.

I was told this by my mechanic. And in response to

that advance that was made, I stopped in at Blockbuster

Video. I left my card, probably with something written on

the back, feel free to call me if you want to discuss

anything or the case or -- I don't remember exactly what I

said, but it wasn't -- it was pretty I thought innocuous:

that if he wanted to talk to me about the case, that's

fine. I'm not going to make any advances to him.

Q. Did you in fact ever talk to Juror 505, Matthew Finch?

A. No, I didn't.

     MS. CRAIG: Pass the witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ms. Craig.

 So, we have Ron Smith’s story about an incident that occurred in which he may have had contact (in contempt of court – and, the Outpost of Freedom, as well as other people who have assisted in investigating this matter, have been threatened with Contempt and Obstruction of Justice charges) with the Juror Matthew Finch.

 Well, during the course of the Hearing, Matthew Finch was sworn and took the stand. Here is what Mr. Finch had to say, as he was questioned by Doug Carpa (from page 130 of the transcript):

 BY THE DEFENDANT CARPA:

Q. How did you come in contact with Mr. Smith’s business

card?

A. He came into a Blockbuster Video Store

Q. Did he specifically come in to ask for you?

A. I have no idea what his nature of his business was in the

store.

Q. Did you Talk?

A. No, not really. No.

Q. Did you make introductions?

A. No.

Q. Did you approach him or did he approach you?

A. He came in the store and gave me his business card, at

which time I called and -- called the judge's chambers and

said that I had been approached by him and he gave me the

business card and wanted to get together and talk at lunch

is what it said on the back of the business card.

 Then, Judge Merryday picks up the questioning. It is clear, as you read this, that Merryday is doing so to set the record straight – and, to cover his own ass. Since Merryday can’t testify, he must rely on Finch to detail what happened when Finch contacted Merryday about Smith contacting him. (from page 131 of the transcript):

 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Carpa.

     Mr. Finch, where was this store that you worked at

at the time you saw – Mr. Smith came with his business

card?

     THE WITNESS: The store that I was in at the time

was at McMullen-Booth and Enterprise Road in Clearwater

     THE COURT: And you say he came into the store

while you were working inside there?

     THE WITNESS: That is correct. He came into the

store and handed me his business card, wanted to get

together, have lunch, and discuss, you know, the case. And

he wrote that on the back of the business card -- wrote a

couple of phone numbers on the back of his business card.

And I believe that same day, after he left, I called and

reported to I believe your office. But I found~ it peculiar

that he had came into the store.

     THE COURT: Did he call you by name when he came in

there?

     THE WITNESS: No, sir, he did not.

     THE COURT: He recognized your face?

     THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, he did.

     THE COURT: Do you know why he was in the store?

     THE WITNESS: No, sir, I do not. He didn't rent

any videos.

     THE COURT: Would it refresh your memory if I said

his car broke down?

     THE WITNESS: That might be correct.

     THE COURT: Do you remember that or are you just

trusting me to not suggest something that is too off the

wall?

     THE WITNESS: Right. That might have been the

case. It sounds about right, yes.

     THE COURT: Did you see his car broke down?

     THE WITNESS: I think I did, yes.

     THE COURT: Did you go out to his car?

     THE WITNESS: Not that I know of, no.

     THE COURT: Did you ask him for his card?

     THE WITNESS: No, sir; I did not.

     THE COURT: Were you actually working in the store,

renting videos and whatnot, when he came in?

     THE WITNESS: I was a training manager. And I

actually happened to be in that store training people at

that point in time.

     THE COURT: Were you in there for a whole eight­

hour shift?

     THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

     THE COURT: Was it -- you were -- so you were not

in that same store either, say, the day before or that next

day? Just that one day?

     THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

     THE COURT: And did you tell Mr. Smith that you

either would or would not meet him for lunch?

     THE WITNESS: No, sir, I didn't discuss anything