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

[Gannibal]

Thanks, I have. I guess I'm looking for something like a practice handbook that discusses how it's used, and a copy of the waiver form itself. It's not a big deal.

[wserra]

It's not a form. It's a series of questions that a judge asks a defendant who wishes to go pro se, coupled with what amounts to advice not to do it, all of which is on the record. There isn't any particular wording required. Generally, the only requirements are that the court explain (and be sure the defendant understands) the nature of the charges and the possible penalties, and the disadvantages of being pro se.

[Gannibal]

Thanks! I'm generally aware of that, just looking for specifics. I believe some districts do use a paper form to document the defendant's consent and allegedly their waiver of the right to counsel (at least, based on those conversations, so a large grain of salt is appropriate). I shouldn't burden the thread with my off-topic questions though. I'll pull a transcript or two and read those discussions. I appreciate the response.

Edit: I'm a dummy. Googling "Faretta form" answered most of my questions. Warm yourselves by the fire of my burning shame.

[Gregg]

I think you'll do better with Google using the term "Faretta hearing". As Wes said, there is no form but there certain things a court will make sure to include.

[Gannibal]

Last off-topic post, I swear--there actually are various forms. Courts use them to document Faretta elections and reinforce the same points they make verbally to defendants making that election. I was curious because I've heard a couple of sovcits rant about how they aren't being allowed to represent themselves without waiving their rights; having looked up a couple of those forms, I think they're confusing the written notifications of their right to a speedy trial, etc., with a waiver of those rights.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, I'm with wserra--can't wait to read the transcript of HATJ trying to navigate a Faretta discussion in court.

She's a JD, isn't she? What I wouldn't give to see her law school issue spotters. "The patient in this case can sue for damages sufficient to mitigate the harm caused by the defendant's negligence, but only if she has duly taken possession of her Berth Certificate and registered her corporeal vessel as a non-state strawman entity via a UCC filing statement notarized and affixed with due postage."

[notorial dissent]

She went to law school and passed the WA bar and then eventually managed to get her ticket pulled from what we've heard, no evidence that she actually ever did anything constructive with her degree other than to get in to a really nasty cat fight with her family and essentially get disowned for her efforts. Apparently she was as good at practicing the law as she was at the rest of her life lessons. Let's just say that whatever legal knowledge she may possess has not helped any of her schemes prosper or gotten her out of jail.

[Gregg]

She ran ads and has reviews from clients that show she was a personal injury lawyer.

[notorial dissent]

That's just scary. Sure it wasn't DUI's and traffic tickets?

[Siegfried Shrink]

That's it, the whole thread. And two subthreads.

She has a genius for poor choices but is not in my opinion unfit to stand trial on grounds of diminished responsibility as we say in Britain. Like many who are somewhat casually described as 'crazy' by posters, she is functionally sane. I would reserve the descrption 'crazy' for those people who have some actual cerebral malfunction that manifests itself in random abberant behaviour as found in dementia, some brain tumours and schitzophrenia. There is no indication of anything but rational design in her behaviour, with the caveat that the reasoning employed has some fundametally flawed axioms underpinning the logical structure. Viewed overall she has not been unsucessful in her chosen line of work which appears to have supported her over a period of several years and gained her the approbation of her peers, which is something that can be said about many more conventional careers, really nothing unusual.
Her present misfortune is something that could and quite frequently does happen to many more conventional career paths.
I am not commending her behaviour as in any way admirable or to be emulated by the young and eager, just as I do not think Enron was a great business idea, Bernie Madoff a great financier, or water companies leaking Chromium salts into the groundwater was all in fun.
I fully agree that the stuff she promoted did a great deal of harm to many people, but this is not evidence of insanity; as in 'The Godfather' "It's just business, it's not personal".
I think it is probably fair to say that this is the time a whole henhouse comes home to roost, but that was a risk all along'
She may find prison quite a fertile ground for her talents, the main problem may be lack of cigarettes.

On a different note, the more it is repeated the more I hear Tucci Jaraff as the name of a comical green and pink spotted giraffe in a children's book about the adventures of some jolly zoo creatures, although at the moment I am bereft of additional chacter names and still working on a plot that might be fit for children.

[The Observer]

Agreed on the issue of sanity. It has been a low-grade, rumbling dispute over the years here - are they crazy or are they sane? My position has always been that these people are sane, just incredibly stubborn, greedy, narcissistic, and anti-authoritarian. There may be the occasional person who might suffer from a delusion, but these people essentially are able to take care of themselves, even if it means resorting to scamming their fellow man to earn their daily bread.

I think people are too quick to issue the label of "insane" or "crazy" as a way to quickly explain unexplained behavior. What man or woman in their right mind would behave in such a way as to deprive themselves of income or even a home? But that is just begging the question, since this position assumes that they must be crazy to do such a thing.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I think people are too quick to issue the label of "insane" or "crazy" as a way to quickly explain unexplained behavior. What man or woman in their right mind would behave in such a way as to deprive themselves of income or even a home? But that is just begging the question, since this position assumes that they must be crazy to do such a thing.

It is reasonable to assume that they did not expect disaster, and that it was contrary to the way they thought things would play out.

This is not really much different from expecting a surge in pork bellies futures for some reason or other that may be equally irrational.

The inevitable failure of the pseudo-legal process should be a deterrent, but it is by no means insane to firmly believe you are right despite differing opinions. I believe the 'War on Drugs' is a pointless and expensive mistake, but it's not going to hurt me because I am not about to set upn a heroin stall in the market place. The pseudo-legal people wind up in the doo-doo because they try to act as if things were as they wish instead of as they are.
Thats not insane, just reckless. The ones that feed the belief are not insane, just predatory.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOLaZ8Z_J_A

This woman is not mad, she is conniving in the attempt to keep the stolen non-money.
I assume this video would be evidence in the case against her.

[notorial dissent]

Heather was relatively safe when all she was doing was scamming the braindead and clueless that she seems to attract lies flies to offal. Which isn't to say that what she was doing wasn't reprehensible or immoral, but as long as she stuck to scamming the clueless who were further out of touch with reality than she is it was relatively safe.

She was an annoyance but hadn't really done anything majorly illegal except filing all those totally out there UCC-01's, I think it was, and they were all de-registered and round filed once they were reported, and since she didn't actually try and do anything with them other than send out really silly letters and con her followers, no one was going to really do anything about her. All she did with them was give the state a bunch of free money. Her followers, on the other hand, those at least that tried her magik wurdz and powaful pahpus all lost, and a lot of them lost big, some of them actually going to jail IIRC. Two things that will get the club of doom down on your head faster than anything are trying a tax scam, and trying a major bank fraud involving the FED. Terminal stupid!!!

Where she got in to big time trouble was in pushing her latest scam/scheme with the FED numbers. That REALLY did break the law and law that the would get paid attention to, and then when she stuck her nose in to Randy Beane’s little peccadillo that put the icing on her conviction cake.

Now I don’t know if she actually believes all the nonsense she has been spouting the last several years or not, but I do think she has come to believe her own PR and didn’t think she would have any more trouble with this than she has before, and there she was so very very wrong.

[TheNewSaint]

I wonder when shit is going to get real for Heather.

According to various reports from her idiot followers, she's having a ball playing Political Prisoner. I wonder when that's going to wear off, and the reality of a long federal prison sentence is going to set in. Especially after the UCC papers are laughed out of court, and her small number of visitors gets even smaller.

And I don't see Heather gaining any new followers in prison, because if her bullshit worked she wouldn't be in there with them. Plus, Heather only cares about Heather, and is nuttier than squirrel shit, which I suspect are bad traits for an inmate.

Be interesting to see if her tune changes at some point.

[The Observer]

It will be, but I have seen too many people on the woo doubling down and embracing their imprisonment as a form of martyrdom and validation of their creed.

[notorial dissent]

Since Heather is known for altering her narrative to fit the circumstances, that is a given, and her braindead followers will never look past what she is saying. They want someone to tell them what they are supposed to be thinking, not actually doing it for themselves.

[NYGman]

I wonder when shit is going to get real for Heather.

And I don't see Heather gaining any new followers in prison, because if her bullshit worked she wouldn't be in there with them. Plus, Heather only cares about Heather, and is nuttier than squirrel shit, which I suspect are bad traits for an inmate.

Be interesting to see if her tune changes at some point.

Most people in prison claim to be innocent, so it will not be a surprise when Heather claims a corrupt system put her away, or the judge ignored the law, etc, etc. Heather will never be wrong, it is the way of the Guru...

[notorial dissent]

I wonder when shit is going to get real for Heather.

And I don't see Heather gaining any new followers in prison, because if her bullshit worked she wouldn't be in there with them. Plus, Heather only cares about Heather, and is nuttier than squirrel shit, which I suspect are bad traits for an inmate.

Be interesting to see if her tune changes at some point.

Most people in prison claim to be innocent, so it will not be a surprise when Heather claims a corrupt system put her away, or the judge ignored the law, etc, etc. Heather will never be wrong, it is the way of the Guru...

That is pretty much Heather's playbook, and the way she will deal with it all. She was right but thwarted by the corrupt-fill in the blanks. I don't think she will like prison though, she won't be the queen anything and won't be speshul anymore, and all her being and doing won't count for squat. She won't like that, she has to be the center of attention, and she won't be.

[The Observer]

She won't like that, she has to be the center of attention, and she won't be.

She might very well be the center of attention in prison, just not in the way she imagined it to be.

[notorial dissent]

She won't like that, she has to be the center of attention, and she won't be.

She might very well be the center of attention in prison, just not in the way she imagined it to be.

True, in fact I rather suspect she will, she has that privileged attitude that just goes over so well in those circumstances.