Quatloos!

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

Finally.

No reason I can think of.

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.

I wouldn't have accepted that, and after one more try I would have either revoked her release or ordered a psych evaluation, even after you said earlier here that it wasn't likely, and even though I knew the ending of this episode... I thought she was going back to jail.

Can we all agree now that Heather isn't going to be released after the verdict until sentencing? Is there an absolute stupid bet place that will take my $2 on Randy getting pre-sentencing release so even though I will surely die from an exploding heart were it to happen, I'd at least get my $10 billion? Changing my vote, HATJ is going to run. No one is stupid enough to think this is going to end well.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Moonbeam, the flock is overjoyed at how Heather has them exactly where she wants them and is planning the after party (where one looks forward to chuckling over this hearing with the Judge, next to the punch bowl. The only thing more astonishingly dumb than Heather is Heather's crowd of followers.

Okay, I might have ordered the bailiff to hold her head under water until she went limp,, but that's why I'm not a judge....

The one thing I hope comes out of this is that the judge rules that if she start off on this BS again in the case he shuts her up, and if she doesn't shut up he removes her from the court.

Can a court decide she can't defend herself because she is too far out of her tree, but that she isn't far enough out of her tree not to understand what she's doing?

Can he do that to a Pro Se defendant? Will he let her continue as a Pro Se defendant?

And really, Randy's pitiful special guest star performance in this hearing almost makes me feel sorry for him. In general, it seems agreed by everyone else that while Heather has some entertainment value, Randy is so completely well and truly screwed that they just barely notice him setting there, stupid grin on his face, waiting to get his sentence that may be effectively a life sentence. Its like we're all embarrassed by his gullibility and fecklessness but this will be over soon and we can all safely forget the little puppy like guy we crushed into goo because he didn't just ask for it, he was on his knees begging us for it, even as he was getting clubbed into unconsciousness by things he didn't even understand. He will think he's winning right up until they tell him he doesn't get to go back to court anymore, he's going to real prison now....

Gregg wrote:Can he do that to a Pro Se defendant? Will he let her continue as a Pro Se defendant?

She has "elbow counsel" so he(?) would take over presumably.

Gregg wrote:Can he do that to a Pro Se defendant? Will he let her continue as a Pro Se defendant?

That's the question. A judge can refuse (or revoke) pro se status to someone who can't/won't follow orders as to what the law permits her to argue to a jury.

Its like we're all embarrassed by his gullibility and fecklessness but this will be over soon and we can all safely forget the little puppy like guy we crushed into goo because he didn't just ask for it, he was on his knees begging us for it, even as he was getting clubbed into unconsciousness by things he didn't even understand.

True Bulwer-Lytton award material there, Gregg.

I'm rooting for her to make it all the way to the end. I really want to read her kicking and screaming that she does not consent while they put her in shackles and drag her into custody.

Gregg wrote:Okay, I might have ordered the bailiff to hold her head under water until she went limp,, but that's why I'm not a judge....

Well, that does bring up my contention that HATJ is a living argument for why water boarding should not be considered torture.

Can we all agree now that Heather isn't going to be released after the verdict until sentencing? Is there an absolute stupid bet place that will take my $2 on Randy getting pre-sentencing release so even though I will surely die from an exploding heart were it to happen, I'd at least get my $10 billion? Changing my vote, HATJ is going to run. No one is stupid enough to think this is going to end well.

I am surprised that she hasn't ran as of this point. The longer she hangs around to play word games in court, the chances increase that the judge is going to realize he was playing with fire when he allowed her out and orders her back to jail.

ArthurWankspittle wrote:The one thing I hope comes out of this is that the judge rules that if she start off on this BS again in the case he shuts her up, and if she doesn't shut up he removes her from the court.

I suspect that will be the case once this jurisdiction business plays out. The judge granted this jurisdiction hearing, having a good idea what Heather's argument would be, so he's letting her argue it. Once it goes through the inevitable appeals process - something the judge allowed time for when setting the trial date - that will be the end of it.

The end of the transcript refers tpa recess till the afternoon. What happened next?

The government's attorneys didn't have much time to speak, so if there was an afternoon session, I suspect it was for them to present. They had little to say anyway:

MS. SVOLTO: We'll rely primarily on our written response. But I'm not sure there's anything I can tell Your Honor or Ms. Tucci-Jarraf or Mr. Beane that will change anyone's minds here.

This Court has to find that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants. It unquestionably has both. The United States Code, 18 U.S.C. Section 3231 that Your Honor referenced earlier,
gives this Court subject matter jurisdiction over matters involving crimes against the United States. It is not in dispute that the defendants were charged by a grand jury for crimes against the United States... The fact that they were brought here forcibly and without consent does not deprive the Court of personal jurisdiction. As Your Honor has noted, criminal defendants do not have to agree to be prosecuted. And this Court does not have to find that they consent to being prosecuted in order to have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. So the Court certainly has personal jurisdiction over
Mr. Beane and Ms. Tucci-Jarraf.

With respect to the UCC filings, those have no legal consequence...

With respect to the Court and the United States having to prove their authority, the Court is under no obligation to do so, neither is the United States.

I took the judge's comments to mean he will take his time issuing a ruling:

THE COURT: All right. The Court will -- I'm going to take all this under advisement. Ordinarily, I would say I would rule on the filings. Little difference here since Ms. Jarraf asked me not to do that, because it's specifically not a motion, but rather an order to me to do something. So I'll just have to take that under advisement, give it my due consideration. And I will issue a ruling in any event, and we'll decide what to do going forward in this matter.

It sounds like he wants to get his ducks in a row and put an end to this nonsense.

Gregg wrote:

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.

I wouldn't have accepted that, and after one more try I would have either revoked her release or ordered a psych evaluation, even after you said earlier here that it wasn't likely, and even though I knew the ending of this episode... I thought she was going back to jail.

Yeah, that should have been strike three and back to jail. Especially in light of this moment from the detention hearing:

THE COURT: All right. So I think what I'm hearing, Ms. Davidson, is she at least accepts my authority for purposes of her release, although she still retains and reserves the right to argue about the Court's overall jurisdiction, either over her or over the case or both. Is that a fair statement, Ms. Tucci-Jarraf?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That is a true and accurate and complete statement. Thank you.

This was central to the judge's decision to grant pre-trial release. Now she's saying she doesn't accept his authority, and was insulting him throughout the proceedings.

Just gonna join the chorus and say that if you have the time it’s definitely worth reading all 92 pages. It’s up there among the best sovcit smack downs of all time. The judge clearly did his homework and deciphered the jibber jabber. If only we had audio video.

When you boil it down it's all right here;

THE COURT: What I'm looking for is yeses and noes, and then if you want to explain the yes or no, but you go straight off into some bizarre explanation, and I never get an answer.

She'a a master of deflection.

Burnaby49 wrote:When you boil it down it's all right here;

THE COURT: What I'm looking for is yeses and noes, and then if you want to explain the yes or no, but you go straight off into some bizarre explanation, and I never get an answer.

She'a a master of deflection.

And that could be for two reasons:

(1) HATJ knows that her arguments are going to fail if the judge makes any progress in his questioning, or

(2) she really has no idea of what she is saying or doing and all of this just appears to be deflection instead of the poo-flinging that it really is.

Siegfried Shrink wrote:The end of the transcript refers tpa recess till the afternoon. What happened next?

The court went to lunch and came back to hear the next case, not every recess is in the middle of one case.

What is the sequence now? The judge returns at a later date with his written reply and says he has jurisdiction then what? Does Heather appeal at that point? If the appeal fails can the prosecution ask or the judge (sua sponte - I'm getting good at this.) decide that she obviously rejects the decision so the chances of her appearing for trial just nose dived, so she will now be detained pending trial?

Good questions. You're obviously getting good at this. A couple, though, don't have simple answers.

ArthurWankspittle wrote:What is the sequence now? The judge returns at a later date with his written reply and says he has jurisdiction then what?

Yes, that's what will happen.

Does Heather appeal at that point?

I'm sure she'll try. The question is, "Does the law permit her to appeal at that point?" The likely answer is "No".

Interlocutory appeals - appeals taken from non-final orders - are strongly disfavored in federal criminal cases. (They're not exactly favored in federal civil cases either, but they are permitted in a much wider variety of circumstances. See 28 USC 1292(b)). The key consideration is whether a defendant will have an adequate remedy on direct appeal following a final judgment. The classic example of an insufficient remedy is double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment prohibits any person "subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". If the District Court erroneously denies a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy, in the absence of an immediate remedy - an interlocutory appeal - the defendant faces being "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". Therefore, in the event of a good-faith DJ issue - a rare event - one sees interlocutory appeals. An order denying bail is a similar exception - a decision in a final appeal that bail was denied erroneously is singularly useless to someone who has been incarcerated for a year.

An appellate court, however, is perfectly capable of deciding jurisdiction following a final judgment. Yes, the defendant may have to wait it out in prison, but that is the case with any appeal.

If the appeal fails can the prosecution ask or the judge (sua sponte - I'm getting good at this.) decide that she obviously rejects the decision so the chances of her appearing for trial just nose dived, so she will now be detained pending trial?

Yes, indeed. Since she has been appearing, though, the judge may well leave her out.