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
7%
Before her trial
11
37%
Before her sentencing
13
43%
Never - she wants to experience BEing and DOing behind bars.
3
10%
 
Total votes: 30

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5633
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:50 pm

Don't get too cocky Siggy, check out pages 60 and 61. Heather's foreclosed on the UK putting you all into bankruptcy. Canada too. That's what we get for pissing her off. I guess we're all screwed.
"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

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

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

Postby TheNewSaint » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:20 am

Based on the transcript of Heather's detention hearing, the judge is already expecting this drivel, and moved the trial date back for the inevitable appeals process to play out.

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

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

Postby TheNewSaint » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:50 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:Heather's foreclosed on the UK putting you all into bankruptcy. Canada too.


That's nothing. Heather also had the audacity to foreclose on the People's Republic of China.

Personally, I think they ought to put her on the first flight to Beijing so she explain it to Xi Jinping and the rest of the Central Committee.

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

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

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:42 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:Don't get too cocky Siggy, check out pages 60 and 61. Heather's foreclosed on the UK putting you all into bankruptcy. Canada too. That's what we get for pissing her off. I guess we're all screwed.


Things move slowly here. This stuff from 2012 will have to wait its turn since there is something like a 60 year backlog on dealing with such important matters.

Heather is possibly unaware, as indeed I was till I asked my friend at the Home Office, that the junior clerk who was dealing with these matters, one Dennis Mildew, retired in 1957 and due to budgetary constraints, and simple forgetfulness, his vital role in the C.R.A.P. subdivision failed to be reflected in the re-filling of his post, with the unfortunate consequence that the incoming packages of a similar nature remain filed untouched in several dozen regulation size filing cabinets, deep under Whitehall.
There is hope for the future, though.
My friend, Lord Jestecost ('Tadger', to those of us at Oxford with him) has decided to consign everything dated before last Sunday to the Public Record Office, where they can be quietly forgotten; as he says, "If it's important, they'll be in touch again".
We had a chuckle over my suggestion that the space freed up could be remodeled as an indoor Fives court for senior civil servants, but I liked his idea that it would be a lot cheaper to designate the area as an 'Important Government Building' so that any bunch of nutters wanting to occupy such a space could be directed there to fester harmlessly. I agreed to leak just how vital this space was, and he agreed to leave the key in the cellar door after access to the rest of the building had been bricked up. We went off for lunch at Whites, comfortable in the knowledge that the Old Boy Network was all the Dark Cabal we needed.

This pragmatism does not seem to be reflected in the US legal system, where it seems to me, there is no real disincentive to typing out and filing the Library of Congress with your local county records office, for any reason or none.

I am also minimally puzzled why recycling the raft of nonsense originally filed as the Doomsday Weapon of the OPPT should be useful in this criminal case. If presented as evidence it may speak to a pre-existing state of mental impairment that shows absence of 'mens rea', but if introduced as some form of motion or plea I'd say it's not going to be helpful.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10631
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

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

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:17 pm

Particularly as it has all long since been de-filed/un-filed/dis-filed whatever the appropriate term is for garbage documents removed from the public record and consigned to the special round file.
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
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6312
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

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

Postby wserra » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:48 pm

Siegfried Shrink wrote:Lord Jestecost


Oh my God! A Cordwainer Smith fan?

I think the two of us are all that's left.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3529
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

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

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:30 pm

wserra wrote:
Siegfried Shrink wrote:Lord Jestecost


Oh my God! A Cordwainer Smith fan?

I think the two of us are all that's left.


I remember reading his stories/novellas in magazines in the early 60's and had completely forgotten about them - thanks for the memories, gentlemen! 8)
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4348
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

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

Postby Gregg » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:56 pm

But the faithful are overjoyed that Heather has finally, fully and irrevocably gotten the OPPT Foreclosures entered into the record of a real, live, alleged US Court and all this implies. They are dead certain that as soon as the Judge sees the impossible to argue with facts that the entire case against her and Ra1ndy will be dismissed, Randy will get to keep the RV and the rest of us will finally have unfettered access to the Sekrit Treasury accounts!

Any day now.

I foresee much knashing of teeth when it doesn't quite work that way. I'm hoping that in addition to tossing this pile of garbage forthwith, the ruling includes a lengthy, detailed and clear refutation of not just it being garbage, but how and why its utter incoherent garbage at that. Something that can be cited for years to come exactly why several myths of woo are wrong.

A guy can dream, can't he?
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.

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

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

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:23 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
wserra wrote:
Siegfried Shrink wrote:Lord Jestecost


Oh my God! A Cordwainer Smith fan?

I think the two of us are all that's left.


I remember reading his stories/novellas in magazines in the early 60's and had completely forgotten about them - thanks for the memories, gentlemen! 8)


His titles were as brilliant as the stories. I attempted to think of a favourite to quote but could not chose.
The overall theme of the Rediscovery of Man, the concepts of Old North Australia and stroon, of the Instrumentality, the animal people, all of it. Oh well, 'Scanners Live in Vain'

Some titles are almost enough in themselves. Like 'High Plains Drifter'

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

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

Postby Dr. Caligari » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:00 pm

wserra wrote:
Siegfried Shrink wrote:Lord Jestecost


Oh my God! A Cordwainer Smith fan?

I think the two of us are all that's left.


I just re-read "The Ballad of Lost C'Mell."
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

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

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:20 pm

Dr. Caligari wrote:I just re-read "The Ballad of Lost C'Mell."


I am pretty sure his books will be far less ephemeral than Wes expects.

Even though i have been a SF reader for 60 years, I have to admit that much of it, like anything else, was dog rough. My library goes back to the 50s, and re-reading most of it now is a bit of a chore.

Very few names stand out as 'not for an age but for all time'

Apologies for the off-topicness, it was just good to know I had friends in common, so to speak.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

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

Postby Jeffrey » Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:07 am

A truly exquisite document.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10631
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

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

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:55 am

Well, I would certainly recommend it as a sovereign cure for insomnia, but otherwise it is of little probative value, except maybe as door stop.
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: 1034
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

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

Postby TheNewSaint » Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:41 am

We can probably expect an enjoyable smackdown, since the judge explicitly told Heather not to re-file all that shit:

THE COURT: Yeah. So when you file your motion for jurisdiction, I would anticipate that at least part of your argument will involve the voluminous UCC filings that have been made both on your behalf and your codefendant's behalf. You do not need to refile them. We have both sets. We don't need a third set or a fourth set. You may reference them by any way you want to, but, please, don't file that volume again.

Now, the only problem with that is, I actually struck the filing before, didn't I? Okay. We actually let the documents in. Just you and Mr. Beane both had somebody file something on your behalf alleging they were noting your appearance. Nobody can do that. People just can't appear for other people. That's just not allowed.


This is from the detention hearing, http://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2017 ... action.pdf. The whole thing is entertaining reading.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10631
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

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

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:51 am

Let the dog and pony show begin. I suspect this is only the beginning.
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.

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

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

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:56 pm

To save time, skip to page 30 of the transcript. She is claiming the assistance of counsel as an indigent with $48 on the bank or banks

Apart from my TDA account. which as you will of course note does not mean treasury deposit account but Direct account.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Other than the treasury direct deposit account, yes.
THE COURT: Other than what?
THE DEFENDANT: An account that I don't have access to, which is what I believe that they're alleging a conspiracy against.


THE COURT: Okay. And as far as employment for you, it says you last worked May 2016 from home, is that correct, as a consultant, lawyer consultant?
THE DEFENDANT: Actually, from -- until May 19th, 2016, I actually was traveling around the world doing a job, but that was to foreclose on a whole bunch of different international corporations. That job was done as of May 16th or May 19th. And I came back here to start a consulting business. It was just starting and getting up off the ground when I was in DC. So I hadn't received anything other than the $700, which I utilized for costs to stay in DC.


Well, that's certainly one way of putting it.

THE COURT: If you'll submit it as a nunc pro tunc, the Court will be inclined to do so. I want to think about that for a minute. But it's not anything we need to take up at this moment. So that will come later. Okay?


Yay, a real live nunc pro tunc not in a gibberish filing but from a judge! (It was about backdating the counsel's appointment for a few days so he gets paid for them.)

Bail is opposed,, for what seem to me to be sensible reasons.

MS. DAVIDSON:(Prosecution) Your Honor, if you -- and I know that you have thoroughly reviewed this, but we argue this based on the fact of her extensive travel in the past few years. You
notice that she's been in Morocco, Italy, Spain, England, Switzerland, China, and she currently resides in Massachusetts. She has zero ties to the Eastern District of Tennessee, no ties at all. She doesn't have employment. And we believe that she has no reason to come back and submit to this court. She has at length talked about how this court has no jurisdiction over her, and I do not believe that she will submit to any orders of this court. And based on the fact that she does not believe that this court has any personal jurisdiction over herself, we can't count on her to comply with any court orders by this court. And once she is released, I don't know how we can have any assurance that she will ever be back in the Eastern District of Tennessee. So based on all this, Your Honor, we believe that the defendant is just too much of a risk of flight and should be detained. I know that -- that the -- also the fact that I don't believe that she will comply with the laws. Now, we're not moving for that basis, but the defendant is on the Internet at length. She has quite -- she puts out YouTube videos. She espouses the fact that everyone is entitled to a special account, which is in the Federal Reserves, and they should all go out there and access it by using the routing number. And so she's a proponent of commit -- asking other people to violate the law. And we're very troubled of that also. We do not believe that she will comply with the laws of the United States if she is released. However, at this point, we are most concerned that she will not comply with any bond requirements or any orders of this court. And so we ask that she not be released.


This is where it is not a good idea to be be well known for disclaiming all responsibility or accountabilty.

HATJ has arranged accomodation for three months in Oakridge, for about $1500 for three months, about $15 a day with AirBnB. This seems cheap but what do I know about property in Tennessee. If it was not mentioned in 'Justified' I know nothing about that state.
Not great but not terrible
It's a little mother-in-law apartment within my house. It's got a kitchen, a bathroom, a bedroom with a trundle bed, and a little living room.


A trundle bed? What if you don't trundle? But I digress......

I'm only half way through :-(

CONT>

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6312
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

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

Postby wserra » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:20 pm

notorial dissent wrote:I suspect this is only the beginning.


How right you are.

A few days ago, Heather filed the first of what will likely be many motions to dismiss. Except she calls it "PRAECIPE TO ENTER DIMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DECLARATION OF DUE CAUSE, PRAECIPE AND DECLARATION OF FACTS" (caps and spelling error in original). Sixty pages of gibberish.

It never cease to amaze me how people who profess to hate lawyers nonetheless feel that they must "sound like lawyers". Of course, since lawyers haven't used that much Latin for a long time, they actually just sound like idiots.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

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

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:46 pm

Continued

We are in the charmingly rustic courtroom so typical of what, having only seen bits of it in what I believe to be a fictional rendition of affairs there,so is somewhat subject to conjecture, but I am imagining they have shooed the pigs out and everybody is settled in an assortment of rustic furniture with a jug or two of moonshine readily to hand, the fan in the ceiling supporting a sleeping possum as it stirs the thick, humid air. The ghost of Clarence Darrow stirs uneasily in a shaded corner.......

Now read on:- Will our heroine, with one bound, break free? Things are not looking good.

A Bill Ferguson has paid for HATJ's accomodation. This makes her a resident. TBH, I think an $800 advance would be a cheap price to pay, if that was all that was needed to keep her out of the pokey.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: As far as the rest of three months or if this case goes longer and we have to extend the stay, it will be myself. I plan on doing any kind of work that I'm able to once I get out. I have a -- I do have a lot of contacts, and most of my work is -- can be done at home, producing documents, et cetera, document data processing, as well as any of my former colleagues. And when the State had asked about colleagues, these are people I've worked with in media. They're people I've worked with in -- on different industries such as medical, et cetera that have -- are in support of all this information coming out, and that I stay here for the duration of this case so that that information can come out, because it is -


Once again, that's one way of describing her 'work'. Does she believe any information will be coming out? Who knows?

This all reads a little oddly to those familiar with the OPPT saga and the Occupation of Morocco, but HATJ oozes sincerity as she states her case for bail.

THE COURT: Okay. Any further argument, Ms. Davidson?
MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, Your Honor. Just regard to the residence. Your Honor, this is a -- all the defendant has offered is that she has a resident available to her in Oak Ridge
prepaid by someone else. There's still no evidence that she would actually go there. She has that ability if she chooses to, but her family, her husband, her four kids all reside in a different district. She still, with the exception of showing that she has an apartment available for her use if she chooses to use so, has not shown any ties to this district. And so we -- and we continue to point out that she does not believe that this Court has any jurisdiction over her. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Tucci-Jarraf, do you have argument to make on behalf of yourself?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes, Your Honor. All that the government has offered assumes that I will not honor my obligations to this -- to bail or to Court or to the honor of the letter of the law that we are addressing in these matters. I have dedicated my life for 17 years to law, and I understand when there -- regardless of whether there's a disagreement or a different position as far as what law is applicable, I have always, always gone in to reconcile those matters in a very peaceful way and always honoring my obligations. I have sworn to this Court under oath that I am going to be making these court appearances. You have already on the record that I did have a criminal matter that I had to attend to in Washington state, which I didn't have any failure to appears.
I've never failed to appear. I have been a member of the bar system. I've been a member of the courts, an officer of the courts at one time. And I understand the implications as well as the importance of meeting these obligations. So I have my word and my honor, and if the Court requires any further assurances that I will be making these court dates, other than just my word and my performance history, then I'm willing to hear those and then make comment on that as well. I've already surrendered my passport, so I'm not able to travel, and I don't have a license, so I'm not able to drive anywhere. I'm going to be living at that address until this Court -- again, this Court has resolved and disposed of this matter.


(Emphasis added)

The four minor children for whom she is the primary care giver (?) get a lot of play for a few pages, which seems to be more than they got in the entire OPPT/Morocco saga, but it plays well in court.
She is willing to sign the bail conditions.

The judge asks about work prospects.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes. The -- I had started a startup just prior to being picked up in DC. And that allows me -- that startup allows me to work from home and to do data processing or document creation, so I'm able to work from -- from the residency that Ms. Wasilik gave you


She is an ace at document creation, that's no lie.

Now for some tricky points.

THE COURT: So the tougher issue is that Ms. Davidson says that she doesn't -- you wouldn't believe that I have any authority over you, so you wouldn't submit to the orders of this Court because you don't believe I have any jurisdiction. So that if you don't believe I have any jurisdiction, then you do what you want, because I have no say-so.
MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: May I respond?
THE COURT: Please.
MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: As I had said before, when there is a matter of jurisdiction or a matter where we don't agree on what law is applicable, I still have a long performance history of 17 years -- obviously, when we do the jurisdiction issue, there will be the matter of the fact that the United States, which is a federal corporation, was foreclosed, but yet I still travel with a passport, because that's what's required by customs agents, et cetera. I have followed all of the laws and regulations until such time as there is a disposition in that matter. And, again, I have requested the hearing so we could do a disposition on -- or excuse me, a decision, determination on jurisdiction. If I just believe there's no jurisdiction, I would have just taken off without any regard, but that's not the case. I have highest regard for law, and this is a matter of just a conflict of law that we need to determine in a very peaceful and in a procedural way, which is what we're doing


And by page 58 the judge decides to release her.

Up to page 74 its details about bail conditions, nothing unusual.
At page 74 there is a little pseudo-legalese about her appearance/presence, and then on for pages and pages about scheduling the trial.

Finally, I think this bit may have been quoted but I may have seen it on Fogbow.

THE COURT: Yeah. So when you file your motion for jurisdiction, I would anticipate that at least part of your argument will involve the voluminous UCC filings that have been made both on your behalf and your codefendant's behalf. You do not need to refile them. We have both sets. We don't need a third set or a fourth set. You may reference them by any way you want to, but, please, don't file that volume again. Now, the only problem with that is, I actually struck the filing before, didn't I? Okay. We actually let the documents in. Just you and Mr. Beane both had somebody file something on your behalf alleging they were noting your appearance. Nobody can do that. People just can't appear for other people. That's just not allowed. So it's probably well intended, but it's just not legal.
MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: So just to be clear -
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- the record still has the -
THE COURT: All the UCC filings, yes.
MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- the actual filings in my case. Okay.
THE COURT: And your trust documents and all such things.
MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Thank you.


And that is about it. Pretty well behaved really but I suspect there is some OPCA simmering under the surface.
Bit of a wait now for the next installment.....
Last edited by notorial dissent on Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edited to fix formatting - ND

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

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

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:59 pm

wserra wrote:

A few days ago, Heather filed the first of what will likely be many motions to dismiss. Except she calls it "PRAECIPE TO ENTER DIMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DECLARATION OF DUE CAUSE, PRAECIPE AND DECLARATION OF FACTS" (caps and spelling error in original). Sixty pages of gibberish.

It never cease to amaze me how people who profess to hate lawyers nonetheless feel that they must "sound like lawyers". Of course, since lawyers haven't used that much Latin for a long time, they actually just sound like idiots.


I am puzzled as to what a court has to do when presented with a huge or even a small mass of what on first sight appears to wierdly phrased bilge. Does someone reasonably well educated have to read all the rubbish just in case there is some faintly arguable point in there? Would they accept it if it was written in Welsh, for example, or could they in that case simply toss the lot?
If submitting motions or whatever has some procedural rule saying they must be in English, could the definition of English not be extended to exclude pseudo-legalese as ann acceptable language?

Enquiring minds want to know.

In Britain such stuff would receive very short shrift as frivolous and vexatious.

waylonmercy
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:51 pm

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

Postby waylonmercy » Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:44 pm

There is no chance in hell that the judge is going to side with Heather in her jurisdictional hearing. I believe Heather knows this, too. That is why I think Ms. Tucci-Jarraf has been planning to flee the jurisdiction since the day that she was released from jail. When the Judge rejects Heather's claim that the United States Government has no jurisdiction over her, Heather can justify fleeing Tennessee by telling her supporters and financial backers that she is being railroaded and cannot receive a
fair trial. If Heather can convince her supporters that she is a poor victim who is being deprived of raising her angelic children by the demonic legal system, the money needed to support her life on the run will flow like water.
Lives are going to be in Waylon Mercy's hands.


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest