Terrance Daniels: "Secure party", now extremely secure

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean

KickahaOta
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:45 pm

Terrance Daniels: "Secure party", now extremely secure

Post by KickahaOta »

Terrance Daniels was charged in federal court with robbing two banks, and with using a gun in order to rob the aforementioned banks (always a useful banking tool).

Before trial, Mr. Daniels asserted a full-throated sovcit defense. One would think that, given the fact that he had taken a big bunch of Uncle Sam's toxic bank notes at gunpoint, he would be rather poorly-positioned to argue a lack of joinder with the government. But, as shown by these highlights of the Seventh Circuit decision, that didn't stop him from giving it the ol' college try:
The court told him “during the trial, you’ll have to act in a civil manner. And if any time during the trial you decide to be disruptive, which I hope you don’t, then I will have no alternative but to consider that you have surrendered your right to be in the courtroom during your trial … .” The court asked Daniels if he had “anything to say about that,” to which Daniels responded, “Yes. I conditionally accept your offer that trial is not needed. Pending my ongoing private administrative remedy will make any proceedings along with this trial moot and I do not participate in any of the public benefits which this court have to offer.”
The district court directed Daniels twice to raise his hand to be sworn in, but
Daniels did not comply. At that point the Marshal directly asked him “Are you going to raise your hand?” and Daniels said “No.” Daniels then began reading nonsense from a prepared script. This passage is illustrative of the totality of his comments: “I conditionally accept upon proof of claim that as a secure party creditor and a holder in due course have I not tendered payment with the CFO and the clerk of this Court to discharge all debts and liabilities and obligation of the defendant according to the commercial code of this state, UCC 3-603. And upon proof of claim that with no outstanding charges, the defendant, Terry Daniels, I move the Court to enforce the laws of the state to discharge the collateral — namely, myself — and set at liberty now. Are you refusing my tender of payment, Judge?”
District Court judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan was shockingly unimpressed by these arguments, and Mr. Daniels was struck from the seating chart for the trial. He was instead invited to watch the proceedings via video feed from his private chambers at the local Federal Government Special Guest Housing Facility, but declined the opportunity.

On appeal, he naturally took exception to these grievous violations of his rights; but Judges Wood, Flaum and Manion are obviously in on the conspiracy as well.

Secure party creditor Terrance Daniels is now extremely secure at Terre Haute United States Penitentiary and Sovereign Special Embassy, and is scheduled to remain there until November 22, 2063 (though given the fact that he is currently 48 years old, there is sadly some risk that he will not be able to fully utilize the government's largesse).

NOTE: There are actually two Terrance Daniels in federal housing; the other is a 22-year-old who should be out in less than 2 years. I have not actually run down the records to positively confirm which one is which. But given the mandatory minimums for use-of-a-firearm-during-a-felony convictions, it seems impossible that two robberies plus two gun crimes could add up to that short of a stretch.
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: Terrance Daniels: "Secure party", now extremely secure

Post by Hyrion »

Terrance Daniels wrote:Yes. I conditionally accept your offer that trial is not needed. Pending my ongoing private administrative remedy will make any proceedings along with this trial moot and I do not participate in any of the public benefits which this court have to offer.
Terrance Daniels wrote:I conditionally accept upon proof of claim that as a secure party creditor and a holder in due course have I not tendered payment with the CFO and the clerk of this Court to discharge all debts and liabilities and obligation of the defendant according to the commercial code of this state, UCC 3-603. And upon proof of claim that with no outstanding charges, the defendant, Terry Daniels, I move the Court to enforce the laws of the state to discharge the collateral — namely, myself — and set at liberty now. Are you refusing my tender of payment, Judge?
Given the default Trial by Jury I would have loved to have carefully observed the Jury members faces as he was spouting that. I can imagine:
Jury 7 in her own thoughts wrote:What the heck is he babbling about?
Of course... that assumes he did that with the Jury members present.

Edited to add: drat.... he eliminated himself from the proceedings during pre-trial discussions so the Jury didn't get a chance to observe him for themselves.
Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 3076
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Terrance Daniels: "Secure party", now extremely secure

Post by Jeffrey »

You've found absolute gold my friend.
Additionally, the government presented testimony from an employee of an automobile dealer who confirmed that on August 3 (the day after the robbery), Dean paid $9,500 in cash to purchase a Chrysler 300M.
Seriously, buying a car in cash with the stolen money a day after the robbery? It's like they wanted to get caught.
User avatar
eric
Trivial Observer of Great War
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Terrance Daniels: "Secure party", now extremely secure

Post by eric »

Jeffrey wrote:You've found absolute gold my friend.
Additionally, the government presented testimony from an employee of an automobile dealer who confirmed that on August 3 (the day after the robbery), Dean paid $9,500 in cash to purchase a Chrysler 300M.
Seriously, buying a car in cash with the stolen money a day after the robbery? It's like they wanted to get caught.
I don't know about the US, but in certain regions of Canada, there is a sufficient population of certain religious faiths that only deal in cash so very large cash transactions are not neccessarily reported as suspicious. Hutterites and Mennonites will walk into car and agricultural equipment dealers and plonk down 100 K$ in bills (brought in plastic grocery bags) and the salesman will not even raise an eyebrow. My last car and my current work truck I paid cash for and the dealer didn't say a word since he knew where I lived. Paying for the car in cash (14 K$) was just a private joke to see what the dealer would say...
KickahaOta
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:45 pm

Re: Terrance Daniels: "Secure party", now extremely secure

Post by KickahaOta »

eric wrote:I don't know about the US, but in certain regions of Canada, there is a sufficient population of certain religious faiths that only deal in cash so very large cash transactions are not neccessarily reported as suspicious. Hutterites and Mennonites will walk into car and agricultural equipment dealers and plonk down 100 K$ in bills (brought in plastic grocery bags) and the salesman will not even raise an eyebrow. My last car and my current work truck I paid cash for and the dealer didn't say a word since he knew where I lived. Paying for the car in cash (14 K$) was just a private joke to see what the dealer would say...
In the US, if a buyer pays $10K or more in cash, the seller is generally obliged to fill out an IRS Form 8300 and report it to the government. A seller is also encouraged to fill out a Form 8300 if a transaction seems suspiciously structured to avoid the Form 8300 requirement. This can lead to some interesting/amusing internal debates if someone wants to buy, say, $9800 in widgets from you: "That amount is awfully close to $10K. Avoiding reporting? I should file an 8300. But if I do that, and the next person wants to buy $9600 worth, should I file the 8300 since $9600 is awfully close to $9800? If $9800 is a suspicious amount because it's just shy of being a suspicious amount, then why didn't they set the lower limit at $9800 in the first place? But then wouldn't $9600 be a suspicious amount? I need a drink."
User avatar
noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: Terrance Daniels: "Secure party", now extremely secure

Post by noblepa »

KickahaOta wrote:In the US, if a buyer pays $10K or more in cash, the seller is generally obliged to fill out an IRS Form 8300 and report it to the government. A seller is also encouraged to fill out a Form 8300 if a transaction seems suspiciously structured to avoid the Form 8300 requirement. This can lead to some interesting/amusing internal debates if someone wants to buy, say, $9800 in widgets from you: "That amount is awfully close to $10K. Avoiding reporting? I should file an 8300. But if I do that, and the next person wants to buy $9600 worth, should I file the 8300 since $9600 is awfully close to $9800? If $9800 is a suspicious amount because it's just shy of being a suspicious amount, then why didn't they set the lower limit at $9800 in the first place? But then wouldn't $9600 be a suspicious amount? I need a drink."

Isn't that what got Kent Hovind in trouble? He made several withdrawals from his bank account, in the $9k range, within a few days of each other. He was convicted of "structuring", or making withdrawals in amounts intended to avoid the reporting requirements.
morrand
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Terrance Daniels: "Secure party", now extremely secure

Post by morrand »

Daniels (along with Daveed/Dahveed Dean) petitioned for a rehearing of his appeal in October. That petition was denied by a majority of the court.

Judges Williams, Rovner, and Posner dissented, however:
Daniels sat silently at 10 of the 13 pretrial hearings he attended; this is not mentioned by the panel. More importantly, he did not continue any disruptive behavior, much less behavior that was so disruptive that trial could not go on in his presence. Instead, he annoyed the judge by: filing numerous documents on his own, despite being represented by a lawyer; taking frivolous legal positions characteristic of so-called “sovereign citizens”; and giving long, unintelligible answers to questions that the judge asked him directly. He was disruptive one time, by yelling, “Are you denying me my right to speak?” at the end of a pretrial hearing. The district judge seized the opportunity and decided to exclude Daniels unless he affirmatively promised not to be disruptive at trial. ...

Aside from the single incident of yelling at a pretrial conference, the conduct mentioned by the panel is entirely irrelevant. By filing numerous documents, advancing silly legal theories, and giving unintelligible answers to the judge’s questions, Daniels no doubt annoyed the judge more than the typical criminal defendant. But none of that provides any basis for finding that trial could not be carried on in his presence. Importantly, all of Daniels’s conduct took place in pre-trial hearings and much of it resulted from the judge’s own decision to ask questions of Daniels directly, even though he had a lawyer. Of particular note, the panel erred by relying on Daniels’s refusal to promise that he would not be disruptive. [Illinois v. ]Allen requires courts to indulge every reasonable presumption against the loss of constitutional rights. 397 U.S. at 343. The presumption is turned on its head if a judge, annoyed and sensing potential trouble, can bar a defendant from trial unless he affirmatively promises (in a manner that convinces the judge) that he will behave.
(Italics the court's; I guess, to crib Thurber, you got to go into italics to discuss unruly sovcit bank robbers.)

I don't know that we have the evidence here to suggest that, as a rule, a restless sovcit defendant won't settle down once trial gets underway. It seems a losing bet, though to their credit, most seem to go plunging forth in a crude facsimile of reasonable argument, rather than storming around, flinging papers on the floor. On the other hand, I'd be a little wary if the circuit's judges were effectively under instruction to let those trials go to hell at least once before invoking Allen. The Sixth Amendment's important, but so is the Fifth.
---
Morrand