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.
