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.....