OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean

Heather will decide to head for the hills:

Before her next hearing
1
3%
After her next hearing
2
6%
Before her trial
13
37%
Before her sentencing
16
46%
Never - she wants to experience BEing and DOing behind bars.
3
9%
 
Total votes: 35

User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby JohnPCapitalist » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:33 pm

Gregg wrote:
Siegfried Shrink wrote:Rather than lock her away, I feel it would be far more amusing to let her off and see what she comes up with next.
'Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel' comes to mind, from Alexander Pope.

I think the whole crazy but essentially harmless saga contributes to the gaiety of nations in a way that many more obnoxious gurus do not, although they remain at large.


I really disagree with that, and most especially the "essentially harmless" part. She has been for a long time a very public and damaging fraudster, not even taking into account the attack on the banking infrastructure. Heather is DIRECTLY responsible for dozens of people losing homes, hundreds if not thousands doing stupid stuff that screws up their lives and their families lives for decades, more than a few who have been arrested, and that's just the ones who are her direct, official Planet Moonbeam Channel followers. Toss in the harm done by the Harvey Dent and Mike Obrien crowd on youtube and its exponentially worse. Counting up the OPPT, the Water Powered Magic Sex Bus, Hope Girl's Big Adventure and Free Energy Morocco Commune and the The TDA Accounts it boggles the mind how much harm she has done. FFS, Look at her hapless co-defendant in this case.

Randy Beane was a low level Sov-Cit claiming not to be a Sov-Cit nut who couldn't hold a job and didn't like license plates or car insurance, he might have been in and out of county jails on 30 day sentences for quite a while going on like this, and every time was a chance to prove he might someday be smarter than a houseplant by the time he got out. Along came Heather, and all of a sudden the unemployed produce clerk is defrauding the Federal Reserve, trying to take $29 million and getting a little bit away with $1.5 million of that. Think he could have gotten that stupid on his own, or did having Heather goad him along contribute just a little bit?

This is merely the first time she's done something that is going to have adverse effects on her.

Elegantly well said. Thank you.

Your portrayal of Beane as a garden variety village idiot resonates, especially in light of his admittedly ignorance-driven endorsement of Heather's incomprehensible legal strategy. I can only imagine how much his standby counsel is rolling his eyes at this idiot. I wonder whether stupidity will cause them to sentence him to concurrent sentences for each of the counts he will likely be convicted on or whether the magnitude of the crime will cause them to put him away for most of the rest of his sad and useless life.

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4430
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby Gregg » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:15 pm

His best strategy at this point is to try very hard to fade into the scenery while Heather goes full tilt nuts, speak only when spoken too and beg the mercy of the court when its over.

He's still gonna spend 10 years or more in prison, but that's what you get for serial bank and wire fraud, money laundering and doubling down with pro se "you ain't the boss of me" trial tactics. Like I said before, he's too stupid to even know how screwed he is, he thinks he's going to be released any day now. The maddeningly screwed up thing is Heather I don't think will get much relative jail time, she may get off with less than 24 months and that would be a travesty. If I ran the world, (well, I do, but I can't tip my hand so I just have to let this run itself out) she'd get a sentence that was based on how much of the aforementioned damage is her fault. Add up all the time all the "courtesy notices" cost people, and combine it. Then add on, at Federal Inmate Pay scales, enough time for her to pay back all the late fees, disconnection fees, returned check fees etc... everyone had to pay to get the lights back on when they tried to listen to how Heather told them to pay their bills with their sekrit accounts. She's going to get off light, after hundreds of her followers get hosed, and of course, Randy, at least, has a good chance of dying in prison.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby TheNewSaint » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:22 pm

Gregg wrote:He's too stupid to even know how screwed he is, he thinks he's going to be released any day now.


Indeed. He thinks he's in jail because of that old warrant from Arkansas or wherever it was, not because he committed massive financial fraud. And the i-uv.com idiots are enabling him with all their postcards and idiotic advice.

But Randy doesn't need much enabling. I suspect he's enjoying the attention. He's a rock star in the i-uv world, most of which are women. Too bad that's all going to end once the case is lost.

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3541
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:27 pm

TheNewSaint wrote:...
But Randy doesn't need much enabling. I suspect he's enjoying the attention. He's a rock star in the i-uv world, most of which are women. Too bad that's all going to end once the case is lost.


I suspect the highly-dependent sycophants will find another, equally absurd fantasy scenario to dwell on, not unlike poor, easily distracted Homer Simpson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsKOYQ7z9CE
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
waylonmercy
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:51 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby waylonmercy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:41 pm

On October 14 I suffered a catastrophic health failure. The last thing I remember before the world went dark was a doctor telling me they were going to have to put me on a ventilator and if everything went well they would wake me up in a few days. I’m not telling the story because I am fishing for get well wishes or flowers. No, I am telling the story because of the first two thoughts I had when I woke up seven days later. My first thought was, "Hey I’m not dead!" Then, out of the corner of my eye I noticed the calendar on the wall indicated the date was October 22. So my second thought was "Damn, I missed HATJ’s hearing!!" I tried to mouth the words "I need a computer" but with the tube down my throat nobody understood what I was trying to communicate to them. I still can’t believe that after all I had been through I woke up with Heather on the brain.
Lives are going to be in Waylon Mercy's hands.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6369
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby wserra » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:01 pm

Waylon, I hate to break this to you, man, but waking up thinking of Heather is a worse sign than needing to be intubated.

But I hope you're better.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10921
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby notorial dissent » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:22 pm

TheNewSaint wrote:
Gregg wrote:He's too stupid to even know how screwed he is, he thinks he's going to be released any day now.


Indeed. He thinks he's in jail because of that old warrant from Arkansas or wherever it was, not because he committed massive financial fraud. And the i-uv.com idiots are enabling him with all their postcards and idiotic advice.

But Randy doesn't need much enabling. I suspect he's enjoying the attention. He's a rock star in the i-uv world, most of which are women. Too bad that's all going to end once the case is lost.

Randy is, at least to all appearances, dumb as a rock and twice as dense, and on top of that thinks he has done something clever. That he is so totally and completely wrong on all accounts is probably one of those things that will continue to elude him even as he is sentenced. He is a true follower.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby TheNewSaint » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:00 pm

notorial dissent wrote:Randy is a true follower.


Right on cue, Randy is now spewing new age nonsense.

Randy talks about the Alchemy Invitation and Possibilities as he Moves on down the road in the shifting energies.


I wonder how that would go over with his buddies at the Kroger in rural Tennessee. :snicker:

I can appreciate that Randy might need a coping mechanism, and if this works for him, fine. But he's only in jail because he listened to these morons in the first place.

User avatar
waylonmercy
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:51 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby waylonmercy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:16 pm

wserra wrote:Waylon, I hate to break this to you, man, but waking up thinking of Heather is a worse sign than needing to be intubated.

I was keenly aware at the time that if people had known Heather was front and center on my mental radar that they would have put me down for my own good.
Lives are going to be in Waylon Mercy's hands.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5840
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:25 am

Last month I went under full anasthetic for the first time in over 30 years for a very minor medical issue. My first thought when I came to was "This isn't my bedroom, where the fuck am I?" Being a selfish bastard I gave no thought whatever to Heather and her valiant struggles. I didn't even think of Quatloos.

One point of interest. The moment I came to there were half a dozen hospital staff around my bed staring at me. As soon as they knew I was oriented they left me with one attendant playing with her phone. Apparently a significant number of patients have issues coming back from the full knockout and they have staff available to grab them if they get too confused.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
waylonmercy
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:51 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby waylonmercy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:35 am

TheNewSaint wrote:
notorial dissent wrote: But he's (Randy) only in jail because he listened to these morons in the first place.

I think it's safe to say that 80% of those doing hard time are in that predicament because they let their "smart" friends talk them into doing something incredibly stupid. Based on Randy's humiliating performance at the October hearing , I don't see how the judge can allow Mr. Beane to continue to represent himself.
Lives are going to be in Waylon Mercy's hands.

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3558
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby grixit » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:44 am

Anesthesia is really weird. Regular sleep lingers. But when i wake up after an operation, i go to full alertness in a split second.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby TheNewSaint » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:50 pm

waylonmercy wrote: Based on Randy's humiliating performance at the October hearing , I don't see how the judge can allow Mr. Beane to continue to represent himself.


I agree. Heather has legal training and some oratory ability, so you if you want to give her enough rope and let her hang herself, fine. But Randy has zero knowledge of anything, not even the nuances of sovcit theory. He's just parroting Heather, and Heather has her own agenda. It borders on cruel, considering what's at stake for him.

User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby JohnPCapitalist » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:06 pm

grixit wrote:Anesthesia is really weird. Regular sleep lingers. But when i wake up after an operation, i go to full alertness in a split second.


It depends on the anesthetic agent. I'm told, by a friend who's an anesthesiologist, that propofol is particularly well known for "instant on" after a procedure. Most people wake up instantly with full faculties and are ready to go. Older agents, which may be used in some cases, have more lingering hangover-like effects.

If you're in anesthesia research, it's a tough business these days because propofol and some of the other drugs in wide use are considered to be so outstandingly good that some universities think anesthesia is a solved problem and are eliminating research faculty positions.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby The Observer » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:24 pm

grixit wrote:Anesthesia is really weird. Regular sleep lingers. But when i wake up after an operation, i go to full alertness in a split second.


Maybe this is the cure for sovrun/freemanry. Put them under anesthesia and hope that it causes a reboot of their brain.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
KickahaOta
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby KickahaOta » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:33 pm

waylonmercy wrote:Based on Randy's humiliating performance at the October hearing , I don't see how the judge can allow Mr. Beane to continue to represent himself.


I can see that pretty easily. In fact, if the judge were to force Mr. Beane to accept counsel, and if Mr. Beane were then to be found guilty, I can pretty easily see that getting reversed on appeal.

The Constitutional right to counsel is exactly that -- a right, not a responsibility. A defendent generally has the right to refuse counsel and represent himself/herself. Faretta v. California.

If someone is incapable of understanding the nature of the trial and the charges against them because of mental illness, then they're incapable of the "voluntary and intelligent" waiver required to refuse counsel -- but at that point, they're generally also not competent to stand trial in the first place.

Of course, it's abundantly clear that Mr. Beane has massive delusions about the nature of the government and the legal system. But unorthodox legal beliefs alone -- no matter how wild -- generally don't amount to the sort of lack of understanding that would allow a judge to say "I'm going to force you to accept counsel."

A quote from Faretta that sheds some light on the Supreme Court's reasoning for this:

In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common-law traditions. For those reasons, and because it specialized in trying "political" offenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed but required defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed. Stephen commented on this procedure: "There is something specially repugnant to justice in using rules of practice in such a manner as to debar a prisoner from defending himself, especially when the professed object of the rules so used is to provide for his defense." 1 J. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 341-342 (1883). The Star Chamber was swept away in 1641 by the revolutionary fervor of the Long Parliament. The notion of obligatory counsel disappeared with it.


And there's a particular twist to the caselaw surrounding self-representation that makes judges particularly reluctant to deny it. Normally, if an error occurs at trial, but the appeals court decides 'That error was harmless', then the conviction stands. Errors only result in reversing a conviction if the error causes prejudice -- if there's a reasonable chance that the error affected the result of the trial. But denial of the right of self-representation at trial is considered a 'structural defect' -- something that changes the whole nature of the trial, not just some particular aspect of the outcome. And if an appeals court decides that a trial had a structural defect, the result is automatic reversal of the conviction -- there's no need to show prejudice.

So a judge overseeing a trial like this will generally just grit his teeth and bear it, unless the defendant's misbehavior -- misbehavior in the form of disrupting the trial, not just making dumb legal arguments -- reaches the point where the judge can say 'All right, you've forfeited your right of self-misrepresentation.'

User avatar
waylonmercy
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:51 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby waylonmercy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:39 pm

KickahaOta wrote:
waylonmercy wrote:Based on Randy's humiliating performance at the October hearing , I don't see how the judge can allow Mr. Beane to continue to represent himself.


I can see that pretty easily. In fact, if the judge were to force Mr. Beane to accept counsel, and if Mr. Beane were then to be found guilty, I can pretty easily see that getting reversed on appeal.

The Constitutional right to counsel is exactly that -- a right, not a responsibility. A defendent generally has the right to refuse counsel and represent himself/herself. Faretta v. California.

If someone is incapable of understanding the nature of the trial and the charges against them because of mental illness, then they're incapable of the "voluntary and intelligent" waiver required to refuse counsel -- but at that point, they're generally also not competent to stand trial in the first place.

Of course, it's abundantly clear that Mr. Beane has massive delusions about the nature of the government and the legal system. But unorthodox legal beliefs alone -- no matter how wild -- generally don't amount to the sort of lack of understanding that would allow a judge to say "I'm going to force you to accept counsel."

A quote from Faretta that sheds some light on the Supreme Court's reasoning for this:

In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common-law traditions. For those reasons, and because it specialized in trying "political" offenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed but required defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed. Stephen commented on this procedure: "There is something specially repugnant to justice in using rules of practice in such a manner as to debar a prisoner from defending himself, especially when the professed object of the rules so used is to provide for his defense." 1 J. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 341-342 (1883). The Star Chamber was swept away in 1641 by the revolutionary fervor of the Long Parliament. The notion of obligatory counsel disappeared with it.


And there's a particular twist to the caselaw surrounding self-representation that makes judges particularly reluctant to deny it. Normally, if an error occurs at trial, but the appeals court decides 'That error was harmless', then the conviction stands. Errors only result in reversing a conviction if the error causes prejudice -- if there's a reasonable chance that the error affected the result of the trial. But denial of the right of self-representation at trial is considered a 'structural defect' -- something that changes the whole nature of the trial, not just some particular aspect of the outcome. And if an appeals court decides that a trial had a structural defect, the result is automatic reversal of the conviction -- there's no need to show prejudice.

So a judge overseeing a trial like this will generally just grit his teeth and bear it, unless the defendant's misbehavior -- misbehavior in the form of disrupting the trial, not just making dumb legal arguments -- reaches the point where the judge can say 'All right, you've forfeited your right of self-misrepresentation.'

I understand all of this. The irony is that when Randy is found guilty, his conviction will be appealed based on the fact he was not competent to represent himself. There is substantial evidence to support that argument.
Lives are going to be in Waylon Mercy's hands.

User avatar
KickahaOta
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby KickahaOta » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:59 pm

waylonmercy wrote:I understand all of this. The irony is that when Randy is found guilty, his conviction will be appealed based on the fact he was not competent to represent himself. There is substantial evidence to support that argument.


Again, the legal US standard for 'competent to represent oneself' is, for better or worse, basically the same as the legal US standard for 'competent to stand trial.'

Yes, there will be an appeal. But if the appeals court winds up reversing on competence grounds, then that means that the trial judge's decision on self-representation almost certainly didn't matter in the first place. And if the trial judge were to deny self-representation, that would set up an appeal with a much higher chance of success.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10921
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:06 pm

The Observer wrote:
grixit wrote:Anesthesia is really weird. Regular sleep lingers. But when i wake up after an operation, i go to full alertness in a split second.


Maybe this is the cure for sovrun/freemanry. Put them under anesthesia and hope that it causes a reboot of their brain.

Have to have a functioning one to begin with, in many case this seems to be an issue.

I agree that Randy is several sandwiches short a picnic, and is basically going to gun fight with a butter knife. I don't think his, and HAT's competence for that matter, are going to be as big an issue as the fact that I think they will both go full throttle sovcit stupid during the trial and go completely off the rails during the trial. I am quite sure she will attempt to bury the court in her speshul majik paper, the question is will the court allow it. I think circus could be an apt description of what happens, or at least could happen. HAT will be playing for her audience, Randy will just sit and be confused.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
waylonmercy
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:51 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

Postby waylonmercy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:35 am

notorial dissent wrote:
The Observer wrote:
grixit wrote:Anesthesia is really weird. Regular sleep lingers. But when i wake up after an operation, i go to full alertness in a split second.


Maybe this is the cure for sovrun/freemanry. Put them under anesthesia and hope that it causes a reboot of their brain.

Have to have a functioning one to begin with, in many case this seems to be an issue.

I agree that Randy is several sandwiches short a picnic, and is basically going to gun fight with a butter knife. I don't think his, and HAT's competence for that matter, are going to be as big an issue as the fact that I think they will both go full throttle sovcit stupid during the trial and go completely off the rails during the trial. I am quite sure she will attempt to bury the court in her speshul majik paper, the question is will the court allow it. I think circus could be an apt description of what happens, or at least could happen. HAT will be playing for her audience, Randy will just sit and be confused.

The thing is pro se means pro se not pro Heather . Randy has to manage his own defense; Heather can't do it for him. BZ and company's primary job is to keep Randy from throwing Heather under the bus to save his own sorry ass. So they fill his head with woo woo nonsense and make him believe he is the greatest legal mind of his generation.
Lives are going to be in Waylon Mercy's hands.


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests