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
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

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

Postby Gregg » Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:30 pm

wserra wrote:The minute entry in its entirety:
Proceedings: The parties presented before the Court for a scheduled motion hearing. The Court discussed the filings made by the pro se defendants with both defendants. The Court also allowed the government to respond to the defendants’ filings. The Court will take these matters under advisement.
Helpful.



My non-lawyer translation...

We listened to the crazy bitch, we told the ding-a-ling and her co-defendant the pile of trash she filed was crazy. We gave the government 30 days to respond to the crazy bitch, and we're gonna try to stop laughing at the crazy bitch long enough to rule on this dumpster fire with a straight face.
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.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

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

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:05 pm

My non-lawyer version was more - Shit! I'm going have to give myself a month to calm down and write a reasoned reply to all the crap that's been filed by this pair of crazies.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

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 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:26 pm

But why is any of this requiring 30 days? Does the government really need 30 days to explain why Heather's nonsense is...well, nonsense? I'd like to think that the government attorney could have taken 30 minutes to write a brief in crayon that could have responded quite adequately to the question as to why the court has jurisdiction.

We need a court rule that basically prevents people filing motions that propose that because they foreclosed on the government, they should go free.
"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
JohnPCapitalist
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:54 pm

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

Postby JohnPCapitalist » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:39 pm

The Observer wrote:But why is any of this requiring 30 days? Does the government really need 30 days to explain why Heather's nonsense is...well, nonsense? I'd like to think that the government attorney could have taken 30 minutes to write a brief in crayon that could have responded quite adequately to the question as to why the court has jurisdiction.


IANAL, by the way. My guess is that the judge wants to appeal-proof his ruling, given that Heather is fighting everything unreasonably. Her demand for an identity hearing is one example of an unreasonable demand, wasting the court's time to litigate an issue whose outcome was never in doubt. So it's likely that she'll appeal the jurisdiction decision, when it inevitably goes against her.

If I were the judge, after glancing at Heather's submissions, I would realize that she is a Grade A loon, and I'd see that there's tons of audio and video evidence against her -- the trial has an excellent chance of being a slam dunk. But what she did is egregious, so I'd want to make sure that she's convicted for the maximum deterrent effect that her conviction (and Randy Beane's even longer sentence) might have on other SovCits. And to ensure that she gets the maximum jail time, the judge will have to steer well clear of anyone raising the issue of mental competence. So he can't deny the motions on grounds of idiocy, and he can't bench-slap her into getting a clue. He may figure that he's got to be oh-so-legalistic with abundant scholarship so she can't claim diminished capacity, mental defect or whatever else later.

Also, given that Heather is the one challenging jurisdiction, that stops the clock on the Speedy Trial act. Her actions are giving the prosecution more opportunity to prepare, as well as causing her to incur all the living expenses for a place away from home (she lives either in WA or MA), a punitive side-effect. So why not slide an additional punitive effect for a useless motion in there by taking his time?

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

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

Postby Gregg » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:12 pm

Her living expenses are being born by Bill from one of the Moonbeam Network™ websites. He is paying most of it, funded also by donations from the OPPT related begging channels. Heather is, by her own testimony, skint broke, having at the time of her detention hearing assets totaling, $48, "other than the treasury direct deposit account.....an account that I don't have access to, which is what I believe they are alleging a conspiracy against".

Funding her stay in Knoxville isn't going to be a problem for her, she'd be passing the hat for the rent money no matter where she was staying. Hell, she rounded up enough to travel to and stay in Morocco.

I'm not optimistic about how long Heather is going to be in prison. Batshit crazy as she is, she's a sideshow to the actual non-violent crime, a first time offender and not physically dangerous. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm guessing she gets somewhere around 24-30 months.

Randy, on the other hand, I think and hope is in serious trouble, and with a lot of factors considered, including that I think he's already in protective segregation because his winning personality got his ass kicked early on, might well never see the outside of a prison again, unless you count out the window of the transfer vans.
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.

Athis
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:26 pm

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

Postby Athis » Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:40 pm

A court judge cannot just shoot his mouth off like someone on a forum, and call Heather a crazy bitch, and to shut up and sit down. Courts have to do things correctly and procedurally; and have to be seen to do it. I would say that is what Judge Shirley is doing in delaying his decision for 30 days.

Has anyone listened to Heather's conflab with BZ today?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LQvY_Vd-4s&t=810s

She really is something else. And BZ too.
I think BZ is sincere; delusional but sincere. A true believer.
I dont know what to make of Heather. So much of what she says about her work in the background and with the intelligence agencies and the banks and the 'families' has to be lies. So what is she really doing. What's it all about. Is she insane or what?

BoomerSooner17
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:07 pm
Location: Katy, Texas

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

Postby BoomerSooner17 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:07 pm

If you are not familiar with Heather's antics, I suggest giving this thread a "quick" (about a week) perusal:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9038

[My understanding of] the short version is that she is a former attorney from Washington state who took a flying leap off the deep end and hit her head on the bottom of the crazy pool after she was evicted or something. She then fled to Morocco, from which non-extradition nation she proceeded to either start or latch onto a movement that promised $5 billion in gold to each and every human being on Earth. This movement had aliens, angels, resonance, and (we presume) lots of illicit substance consumption. Obviously, the movement failed, but it took up 3 years' worth of postings in the above thread.

Edited to correct Heather's place of origin from Oregon to Washington. (Us Texans don't spend much effort in distinguishing between places that aren't in Texas. It's all the same to us).
Last edited by BoomerSooner17 on Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Never in the field of human conflict, was so much owed (but not paid), by so few, to so many." - Sir Winston Churchill

Athis
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:26 pm

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

Postby Athis » Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:50 pm

BoomerSooner17 wrote:If you are not familiar with Heather's antics, I suggest giving this thread a "quick" (about a week) perusal:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9038

[My understanding of] the short version is that she is a former attorney from Oregon who took a flying leap off the deep end and hit her head on the bottom of the crazy pool after she was evicted or something. She then fled to Morocco, from which non-extradition nation she proceeded to either start or latch onto a movement that promised $5 billion in gold to each and every human being on Earth. This movement had aliens, angels, resonance, and (we presume) lots of illicit substance consumption. Obviously, the movement failed, but it took up 3 years' worth of postings in the above thread.


Thanks for that link BoomerSooner17 :)

BoomerSooner17
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:07 pm
Location: Katy, Texas

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

Postby BoomerSooner17 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:47 am

No problem! And welcome to Quatloos!
"Never in the field of human conflict, was so much owed (but not paid), by so few, to so many." - Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
morrand
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

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

Postby morrand » Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:22 am

Athis wrote:A court judge cannot just shoot his mouth off like someone on a forum, and call Heather a crazy bitch, and to shut up and sit down. Courts have to do things correctly and procedurally; and have to be seen to do it.


One hopes this is the case, anyway, despite occasional exceptions.
---
Morrand

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

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

Postby Gregg » Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:50 am

morrand wrote:
Athis wrote:A court judge cannot just shoot his mouth off like someone on a forum, and call Heather a crazy bitch, and to shut up and sit down. Courts have to do things correctly and procedurally; and have to be seen to do it.


One hopes this is the case, anyway, despite occasional exceptions.


I have never seen that before! I almost fell out of my chair! That's better than an out of control union employee disciplinary hearing! (which sometimes get a little bent but NOTHING like that)
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.

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

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

Postby Gregg » Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:55 am

I'm just curious, and I'm not sure what I think is really happening but....

Sometimes in these PAM Memorial Batshit Crazy Defendant Award winning trials, eventually I or someone will start to speculate how long XXXX might be a guest of the BOP or local enforced hospitality institutions. Am I remembering correctly that the lawyers never comment on these speculations? If I am, is there a reason? Is it unethical to say things on a forum because a person is an attorney?

Just wondering.
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.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

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

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:15 am

Gregg wrote:Her living expenses are being born by Bill from one of the Moonbeam Network™ websites. He is paying most of it, funded also by donations from the OPPT related begging channels. Heather is, by her own testimony, skint broke, having at the time of her detention hearing assets totaling, $48, "other than the treasury direct deposit account.....an account that I don't have access to, which is what I believe they are alleging a conspiracy against".

Funding her stay in Knoxville isn't going to be a problem for her, she'd be passing the hat for the rent money no matter where she was staying. Hell, she rounded up enough to travel to and stay in Morocco.
I'm not so sure. Unless Bill can fund this all himself, I can see the donors getting fatigue as the case drags on. No matter how you spin it, Heather is being stopped from doing whatever she is supposed to be doing. Could be a good time for a new guru to jump in, too.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

Athis
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:26 pm

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

Postby Athis » Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:18 pm

I recently came across this hilarious exchange between a judge (Judge Hurley) and a sovereign man
Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7h7uevwxt8

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6355
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

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

Postby wserra » Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:56 pm

Athis wrote:I recently came across this hilarious exchange between a judge (Judge Hurley) and a sovereign man
Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7h7uevwxt8


Thanks, but we've seen it several times before. Here, for example.

"Read Quatloos long enough, and the delusions of all the sovrun 'tards will float by."
- Quatloosian proverb.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6355
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

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

Postby wserra » Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:02 pm

BTW, if you like that video, you'll love this one.

Which has also floated by Q before.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Athis
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:26 pm

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

Postby Athis » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:42 pm

wserra wrote:BTW, if you like that video, you'll love this one.

Which has also floated by Q before.


That really is a hoot :)
I think the sov ideology should be recognized as a mental disorder

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2559
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

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

Postby Jeffrey » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:04 am

Bob Wright has resurfaced and hosted a call with HATJ.

http://i-uv.com/hatj-100-attention-inte ... uper-fast/

Highlights include HATJ stating she's an anti-vaxxer, bizarre integration of Mueller/Uranium One conspiracy theories, Bob stating he offers private consultations, etc.

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 684
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 Nov 03, 2017 9:31 am

Some glutton for punishment has transcribed the call.

Here it is with the waffle taken out.

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

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

Postby TheNewSaint » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:32 am

The transcript of Heather's jurisdiction hearing has been posted to the Internet:

i-uv.com web page containing transcript

direct link to transcript PDF

This is a quality sovcit takedown. The judge has a sense of humor, and quickly loses patience for Heather's bullshit, both of which she completely fails to pick up on. A few sample exchanges:

After 10 pages of trying to get Heather to explain where she gets the authority to issue commands to the court:

THE COURT: Let me see it. Hand me a document that says "Judgment" on it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's dated November 28th. I'm going to hand you my personal copy .

THE COURT: I'll be glad to hand it back.


After getting a document that does not say "judgment" on it, the judge tries to get Heather to explain where "unrebutted affidavit" and her other maxims of law come from:

THE COURT: Okay. So what I'm hearing is, even though it's universal, it's everywhere, you know all about it, there's no place I could go and find these?


Heather continues to assert that the court does not exist:

THE COURT: Okay. Your position is we don't legally exist, because you have no documentation. And what documentation would it take to convince you that I legally exist?


MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: When I assert a declaration of lack of jurisdiction and existence as a legal entity to come in
and have authority over me.

THE COURT: So if you were to claim I was a zebra, I would have to issue proof that I wasn't?


Heather grows tired of explaining to the judge how the law works:

THE COURT: Does that mean that your position is that not only do Judge Varlan and I not have any authority or jurisdictions over you and Mr. Beane, but we don't have authority over anyone?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You know, can I just ask for a clarification here? Because it feels like I'm giving legal advice at this point.


The judge tries to get to the bottom of Heather's argument:

THE COURT: In the name of trying not to commit more fraud, I take it your position then is, if someone robs a bank today and they come in here, I should just tell them I have no authority over them, I don't exist, and they should just go home?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm not going to give you any legal advice of how you should conduct your affairs today.

THE COURT: I mean, that would be the ultimate result of what you're proposing.


THE COURT: I was hoping that at some point in our discussion, you could see the fallacy in your argument or at
least your supporters could.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, I hope that you see the fallacy in your hypothetical.


Heather explains her relationship with the United States Constitution:

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The constitution used to exist. It was actually canceled within the foreclosure. And that -- a constitution is actually a contract. And, no, I've never been a signatory to that contract.

However, when I was a licensed, barred attorney,before I was made aware of it, yes, I did swear to uphold the constitution. However, it's a contract. I'm not a signatory to it. Are you?


Try to imagine the statement that prompted this response from the judge:

THE COURT: That's not my point. You said Jeff Sessions would have to send something with his fingerprint on it.


Heather pulls an "OH, PSYCH!" on the judge:

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Are you in receipt of the Declaration of Statement of Assessments? That's Document 55.

THE COURT: Is that the one where you claim some people in this court system, maybe me included, owe you $46 quintillion?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Oh, I see where the -- no, this is not you directly.

THE COURT: Oh, good.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Or to anyone here.

THE COURT: Good.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This is the amount that is running, and actually since 901, it's been doubled and compounded.

THE COURT: So, like, we're up to 92 quintillion? I probably don't have that.


We also get to see the brilliant legal mind of Randy Beane (who is facing 16 federal counts pro se):

THE COURT: Mr. Beane, is it correct that you want to join in Ms. Tucci-Jarraf's praecipe filing?

MR. BEANE: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you know what a praecipe is?

MR. BEANE: No.

THE COURT: Do you claim this Court has no jurisdiction over you ?

MR. BEANE: Yes.

THE COURT: Can you explain the legal basis for that claim?

MR. BEANE: No.

THE COURT: All right.


Later in the proceedings:

MR. BEANE: If I may ask a question?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BEANE: You referenced on August 29th, in reference back on August 29th, you specifically asked me if I thought I was God in the courtroom.

THE COURT: Right. Because you said you were the source of all that is.

MR. BEANE: My question to you is, what gives you authority over me in this situation if you aren't God?

THE COURT: Is it your position that a judge does not have authority over you when you are alleged to have committed a crime?

MR. BEANE: We've asked for that proof of who you are.

THE COURT: Okay.


But Heather butts in:

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Only -- it would only be one part of documentation that's required amongst the rest. I would need proof --

THE COURT: What's the rest?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I would need proof that the United States actually exists and is lawful and validated. The only one that can actually do that is --

THE COURT: I can't prove that, can I? Because they don't under your theory. As of March 13th, 2013, they don't exist. So how could I prove that?


Heather plays with fire:

THE COURT:Let me just be sure, because now, after today's hearing, you may be treading on questionable ground. Do you recognize my authority to issue the release order that I released you on or not?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF:For me, that was a private agreement between you and I.

THE COURT:No, ma'am. That was a court order issued by me as the magistrate judge. You either accept that authority or you do not. And if you do not --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF:I accept it.

THE COURT:-- why would I allow you to remain out?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF:I accepted the agreement, and I still accept --

THE COURT:No, it's not an agreement. It's an order from me with all the authority of the United States behind it. Do you accept that or do you not? It's a yes or a no.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF:I accepted the order that you didwithout prejudice, which means all the stuff that isn't there,isn't there. But I am following this order that you and I entered into.

THE COURT: You understand you have to comply with the conditions in my court order?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF:Have you received any information otherwise that I have not followed everything that you and I signed off on?

THE COURT: I didn't ask you about whether you followed them. I asked you did you agree that you must follow them?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I agreed to see you on that day, and I reconfirm it again this day, that I agree to it, I'm following it.

THE COURT: You understand you have to comply with my court order or you don't get to stay out. Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF:I told you then and I told you now, I choose to follow that court order because we're going to finish this all amicably, I said until this was disposed of in an amicable way and affinitive way, that I would follow that agreement between you and I -- or that order that was signed off by both of us.

THE COURT: Do you agree that I have the authority to issue that order?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I agree that I gave you consent to issue that order, yes.

THE COURT: All right. Give you one last chance.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Without jurisdiction.

THE COURT:I'll give you one last chance. Do you agree that I have the authority to issue that order?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You have the authority to issue that order because I gave you that authority to issue that order.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It is an order I continue to follow until we have a disposition in this case, a final disposition.


And that's not even all the crazy to be had.


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest