Suzanne Holland Chief Justice of the Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilhqot’in Nation

[Frater I*I]

Had a good pull yesterday from PACER concerning Pop-A-Squat's habeas suit. The Tenn AG office filed their response to him and it includes the trial transcripts from his recent failure to appear trial. Day 1 is just witness testimony, none of the crunchy goodness in between, but day 2 so far is the whole ball of wax.

I'll get them uploaded to my DB after class and provide links.

[Frater I*I]

Here they are, filings 11 through 11-12 & 12 are the newest. 11-3 & 11-4 are hearing transcripts, 11-5 & 11-6 are the trial.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zhvsmdsoboac ... SeW1a?dl=0

[ArthurWankspittle]

That was today's intermittent amusing read. He is really into the woo. The cross exam by the prosecution sounded fun. I was also amused that the jury took a whole 5 minutes from leaving court to being back to give a unanimous guilty.

[Baidn]

Really is a little fascinating to see how Parsons ended up falling down this stupid SovCit rabbit holes pretty much entirely because of ego. I look forward to some out of patience judge just telling him at some point "Mr Parsons you are not important, you are not a 'danger to the government' you are not anyone special in any way to the court. You are simply an uncooperative felon, one of thousands that makes their way through this system whining and moaning the whole way. When you are convicted again or aquitted you will be treated in the exact same mundane way as ever other totally average and insignificant individual who has that result. Now please close your totally unremarkable and unexceptional mouth so we can move on." Though I'm sure it wouldn't be enough to break his self imposed illusion of Mike ever DID realize that the state in no way cares about him personally, that he is just another tiny annoying speck of grit in the gears of societal machinery, that would be worse to him than a lifetime in prison.

[Frater I*I]

That was today's intermittent amusing read. He is really into the woo. The cross exam by the prosecution sounded fun. I was also amused that the jury took a whole 5 minutes from leaving court to being back to give a unanimous guilty.

And remember, most of that time was taken up by the commute to and from the jury room....

[Pottapaug1938]

That was today's intermittent amusing read. He is really into the woo. The cross exam by the prosecution sounded fun. I was also amused that the jury took a whole 5 minutes from leaving court to being back to give a unanimous guilty.

And remember, most of that time was taken up by the commute to and from the jury room....

.... and bathroom stops.

[notorial dissent]

I can't say if Mikey is a narcist or not. I can say he has serious delusions about who and what he is. My impression is that he has been nothing but a total inconsequentiality his entire life, apparently an unpleasant one in the bargain.

I can't help but think Mikey was his own worst witness and advocate.

What I don't understand is why the court gave him any leeway at all on the pretend ambassador et al nonsense.

[Baidn]

In my experience it has to do with limited resources in rural areas. You've gotta pick and choose which kooks are dangerous and worth the extra resources to cut off at the pass and which it's better to just let spin their wheels and move things along. Mikey is a pretty textbook example of the second category; he hasn't managed to do anything but hurt his own case with his CNC crap and considering that even a generous estimate puts the active members of his merry band at less than a dozen the court can pretty much just safely ignore him. As long as he's not actually insane he can write all the indignant letters to an elderly couple in Canada he wants the courts overall stance seems to be in line with the prosecutor as to quote him "it's like trying to teach a pig to sing, just a waste of time" to try and cure him of his delusions.

[notorial dissent]

Near as I can tell, the only ones who have actually committed crimes are Mikey/his wife, and Suzy. Mikey and wife are in jail and Suzy is trying her damnedest to get the Canadian court to not be so Canadian and to just lock her up as well.

[TBL]

In my experience it has to do with limited resources in rural areas.

I would say this is not a rural law-enforcement nor truly rural area. If anything, I'd call it suburban. While it's larger-than-usual plots, it's a suburb of Memphis. I think the real reason he flew under the radar was due to him not really being an issue outside of the delusions in his own head.

[Frater I*I]

Near as I can tell, the only ones who have actually committed crimes are Mikey/his wife, and Suzy. Mikey and wife are in jail and Suzy is trying her damnedest to get the Canadian court to not be so Canadian and to just lock her up as well.

It also seems the Canadian courts [and any Canadians can correct me on this if I'm wrong], are willing to give her a lot more leeway as to whether or not she's mentally competent to stand trial, seeing as she's already had 3 trips to the mental health hospital as far as I have gathered. Here in the US had she pulled the "I'm not going to cooperate with the exam so the default will go to mentally competent" trick, they would have declared her competent for trial and she'd be enjoying a 15-20 year vacation in the federal BoP.

[eric]

Here ya go:

The law assumes that every accused person is “fit”, unless it is determined by a judge, after a fitness hearing that the accused is “unfit to stand trial.” This is called the “presumption of fitness” and is in the Criminal Code.

and some further information:
http://lawfacts.ca/node/287
http://lawfacts.ca/mental-health/trial/stand
It's not unusual for a possibly unfit person to bounce in and out of hospital and court multiple times until a decision is made since assessment orders are only for thirty days. If you are found unfit the length of time between bumps can be up to 2 years. Just ask Jamey about this:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11468&sid=3f8f3e5b ... f4b111ba28

From what I can tell Ms. Holland is just trying to throw delays in the works - Two appeals and an overturned private prosecution even before a trial date has been set.

[Baidn]

I'm personally not certain as to whether or not she actually should be in a mental hospital instead of prison. To me it hinges on (1) how truthful she was being about why she had to be sent to medical when in the jail, she claimed she was being poisoned and needed to "flush it out" and ended up hyperhydrating. Which would imply a paranoid delusion thus padded room; and (2) how actually involved the good fake chief is. If he knows and is encouraging her activity he may be using her as a pawn knowing she's mentally disabled or ill in which case I would again say she should be an adult ward of the state but not in prison as she would doubtless just he further manipulated in that environment.

[Jeffrey]

What I understood was that she thought the hospital was poisoning her water. Which yes, sounds like a paranoid delusion.

Plus the stuff about the dentists, she’s not well mentally.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

What I understood was that she thought the hospital was poisoning her water. Which yes, sounds like a paranoid delusion.

Plus the stuff about the dentists, she’s not well mentally.

I realise this is a slight tanget, but by that definition chem-trail/5G/QAnon believers are mentally ill. There's a big difference between being stupid and believing in any old shit and being clinically mentally ill. 98% of the poots on this board would classify as mentally ill if the broad definition was adopted!

[notorial dissent]

Just me, but I would say that believing something, no matter how sincerely, that results in endangering your, or someone else's life, quite handily pushes it over the line. Hyperhydrating, drinking chlorine, chlorine enemas, messing with silver, things like that pretty well cross the line.

[Baidn]

What I understood was that she thought the hospital was poisoning her water. Which yes, sounds like a paranoid delusion.

Plus the stuff about the dentists, she’s not well mentally.

I realise this is a slight tanget, but by that definition chem-trail/5G/QAnon believers are mentally ill. There's a big difference between being stupid and believing in any old shit and being clinically mentally ill. 98% of the poots on this board would classify as mentally ill if the broad definition was adopted!

I think most here would agree that the line sits somewhere around physical action based on the delusion as Dissent pointed out. I'm not a psychiatrist or anything and there's a reason that courts employ those professionals, but I would say there's a difference between the mental state of someone who buys into the chemtrails ct and someone who buys into it then plots how to blow up the planes and stop it. Holland's situation seems to me less like someone desperate or believing in quack cures such as the man a while back who took his terminal child to a medicine man in the middle of nowhere bc it was at the point where doctors have said you need to make your peace with this; and more akin to torturing a child with an at home exorcism because your neighbor cursed them. She just personally seems less like a Mikey situation where they say anything to look like a victim (as far as I'm aware Parsons never actually self harmed to sell his act) and more like someone who's delusions really are so extreme they are a danger to themselves.

[DarthManius]

Just spare a thought for Judge Walker who has been dealing with Parsons since 2007.

[eric]

I think some of the preceding discussions about fitness to stand trial are entirely missing the point. Ms. Holland or Parsons may or may not have a mental disorder but under Canadian Law, it appears that Ms. Holland, after her mental health assessment was found fit. She may have certain unfounded, and shall we say controversial, beliefs but they do not prevent her from going to trial.

I'm sorry to bring up Jamie Sterritt (AKA God) again, but his rather unusual beliefs, and using them as a defence have not affected his court outcome. In fact, his ability to create a reasonable argument, so long as you accept that he is God, means that he some of the time is fit for trial. From:https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=6

[6] Dealing first with what I am describing as the jurisdictional or authority issue, Mr. Sterritt advises the court that he is Christ and describes himself as Christ James. By that description I take it to mean that he is affiliating himself with the religious figure described in the Christian Bible as the Son of God. There has been no evidence called to suggest that Mr. Sterritt is unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder, so I take it that he profoundly and deeply holds that view to be true.
[7] The mere holding of a particular perspective or point of view by one person does not necessarily make it equally as apparent to others in the community that that is that person's view. In fact, it is not even necessary for other members of the community to accept that person's perspective.
[8] Mr. Sterritt says that as a result of being Christ, the figure that he has described, he has certain powers which he described at various times as imperial power, and on another occasion as a temporal power of the infinite power, that he says is higher than or at least co-exists with the powers of the federal and provincial government and the powers of this court. And as a power that is, he says, higher than or occupying a portion of the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial government and First Nations and other entities, both domestically and internationally, his authority and power is higher than the authority and power of this court and, as such, this court has no authority or jurisdiction to even entertain the charges against him.
[9] I have considered his argument on that point, and I do not think it will come as any surprise to Mr. Sterritt that I am bound to say that I must reject such an argument. It may be that at a higher court on a different day more learned justices than myself might find room in the law, as I understand it, to disagree with me, but I feel I am bound by certain evidentiary issues and certain powers conferred on me by the very authorities that give me those powers, to say that I am unable to accede to his argument.
[10] I note that even by his own admission he was born in this area and given the name at the time of James Russell Sterritt. He has not, in my view, satisfied me on a balance of probabilities that he is anyone other than that person, or more specifically, that he has demonstrated any particular spiritual position, place or power or authority. He chooses to call himself Christ James, and he is entitled to do so in our free and democratic society. But that does not necessarily mean that I, as another member of our society, or indeed I as a member of the judiciary, have to recognize that that personage has any special legal position in our community over any other citizen.
[11] Even if I am wrong on that point, however, I take the position that there is no evidence that any such person, even if he did exist in the form that Mr. Sterritt says he does, would not be subject to the rule of law of this country, just as any other person occupying space in this country, including the Head of State of our own country, the heads of various religious groups, et cetera.]

Summary: even God falls under the rule of law.
I apologize for straying so far off topic

[TBL]

Well, even if the defendant wasn't god-like, the judge's writing sure was.