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

[SteveUK]

John - many thanks , much appreciated!

[TheNewSaint]

Both seem likely to have ways of rationalizing their failures until the cell doors slam shut; they don't seem to understand the dire situation they're in.

Also noteworthy is that both Heather and Randy did not fare well in prison. Heather successfully argued for pre-trial release; her comments during that hearing indicate she did not enjoy the federal prison experience. Randy has remained in prison, and has been moved multiple times for his own safety. Which makes their foolhardiness even more puzzling.

[JohnPCapitalist]

Both seem likely to have ways of rationalizing their failures until the cell doors slam shut; they don't seem to understand the dire situation they're in.

Also noteworthy is that both Heather and Randy did not fare well in prison. Heather successfully argued for pre-trial release; her comments during that hearing indicate she did not enjoy the federal prison experience. Randy has remained in prison, and has been moved multiple times for his own safety. Which makes their foolhardiness even more puzzling.

I'm sure Heather's objections to prison are fairly standard. It must suck to be stuck in jail and to have every aspect of her life controlled and monitored by people who stubbornly refuse to get it about all her special snowflake New Age BEing-DOing super powers.

But Randy's situation is quite bizarre. He doesn't strike me as someone who's either physically imposing or violent by nature. He doesn't have much of a social media footprint, but what people have uncovered doesn't suggest that he's a gun nut, white supremacist or otherwise dangerous. Just your average everyday garden variety perennial loser.

The only way he could have gotten in so many fights that they have to keep moving him is by being utterly unable to adapt to the social norms in jail. I'm sure most of that involves continuously talking about whatever pops into his head, probably including telling other inmates all about his magic legal theories, probably with a whole lot of evangelical nuttiness thrown in.

He either ignores or is unaware of the vibe that someone throws off when they're increasingly tired of his nonsense, which gives rise to yet another beat-down. And the cluelessness makes it seem like this will continue forever, at least until he gets shanked or put in solitary at an ADMAX to protect him from the consequences of his own stupidity.

[notorial dissent]

Randy's problems arise, IMHO, from the basic and inescapable facts that he is flat out bone deep stupid and brain dead. He was, until he discovered the majik accounts a petty incompetent career criminal, at least to my understanding. I also get the feeling that he is the sort of person who really starts to get on your nerves after he has been talking any length of time. I think unaware is probably the explanation as that pretty much sums up his existence. He also thinks he is smart and clever and I suspect there is a bit of attitude that comes with it that really rubs his cellies the wrong way.

[TheNewSaint]

Yawn... another praecipe from Heather:

http://i-uv.com/hatj-rkb-pacer-doc-85-a ... e-1-16-18/

This in response to what appears to be boilerplate jury instructions.

[JohnPCapitalist]

Yawn... another praecipe from Heather:

http://i-uv.com/hatj-rkb-pacer-doc-85-a ... e-1-16-18/

This in response to what appears to be boilerplate jury instructions.

I suspect this will get tossed because the last pretrial hearing was on January 12 and motions were supposed to have been shut off by then. But one of these isn't a motion, it's a praecipe, which has super powers, according to Heather. I don't know what the use of a praecipe is in the real world, but in Heatherland, if you title a filing a "praecipe" instead of a motion, then the court has to do what you ask.

This document is kind of sad, really: Heather's got no new nonsense to sling as trial nears. She's just going to try to bring in the same old arguments: "jurisdiction" and "praecipes trump everything." And Randy's going to keep going with his legal strategy of "Whatever Heather said, even though I don't understand it."

One interesting bit: it refers to the government's motion in limine, which seeks to preclude Heather & Randy from talking about jurisdiction and trying to argue that the court doesn't have authority over defendants.

[Siegfried Shrink]

If the defendants were so deep in the woo that they truly believed that they had secret accounts that belonged to them, the charges could not be proven. Having trudged through this pseudo-legal crap for the last 9 months, I can believe that some people sincerely believe in the whole nonsense of birth bonds and the rest of it.

The jury instructions clearly state this offence depends on mens rea, a guilty mind, and the defendants had no such guilt as they were in a deluded state, and did what they did in the way that they did it because of reasons too arcane to explain. The continued bombardment of the court with nonsense paper makes no sense in the real world, but is just part of an essential process for the deluded.

As a defense I would be trying to establish in the minds of the jury that no matter how unrealistic the beliefs of the defendants were, they were sincerely held, and I would try to introduce evidence of the apparent beliefs of other sincerely deluded people to show that these people were in fact mad, not bad.

I would try to have the defendants declared incompetent to conduct their own case, because of the nature of their abberant mindset which would preclude them from advancing a defence which would have some chance of success, since such a defense, in effect declaring that they were so wrong that their behaviour was in their own minds, quite innocent and devoid of malicious intent, would not be one that sincerely deluded people could advance.

I am not being paid to defend these two miscreants, so I'm not goimg to produce a skeleton argument for the defence, but I think the basic idea of such a defence would be the only way that a jury might accquit or at least induce some doubt in some jurors. I think it would have the best chance of success with Mr Beane, and the fact that he shares a name with a bumbling TV comedy character would be helpful. HATJ would be more problematic, she has never conviced me that she has any beliefs at all,

I would try to exclude jurors who might be the hardest to convince that people can be just this crazy, and not be completely fixed on the idea that this is so obviously a scam that it is is pointless considering that it may simply be the application of a belief system that has existed in la-la land for decades, and the apparent success, brief as it was, was not due the cunning of the defendants but the result of a change in the bank clearing system which, for a period, made such shenanigans possible.

Opinions on the viability of this defence are welcome, to me it seems to have at least a fighting chance if well conducted.

[Burnaby49]

If the defendants were so deep in the woo that they truly believed that they had secret accounts that belonged to them, the charges could not be proven.

That wouldn't work in Canada. The sincere belief of an accused that he wasn't breaking the law is not a defense. The prosecution does not have to prove that the accused knew he was breaking the law. All that has to be proven was that a law was broken. All but one of the Poriskyites were convicted even though they (or at least some, like Lawson and Millar) firmly believed in Porisky's tax evasion theories. Lawson spent a lot of court time trying to convince the jury that he really believed that Porisky's intepretation of law was correct so he wasn't guilty of tax evasion because he was an honourable man doing his best to follow tax law as he interpreted it.

That was actually one of Porisky's selling points. He said in a video that if his followers argued in court that they believed in his legal interpretations they could not be convicted of tax evasion since they did not commit a crime if they truly believed they didn't owe any tax. That was, legally, irrelevant. All that mattered at trial was whether they committed a crime by evading tax. Both judges and juries found that the did and they were convicted.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I was basing my case on the jury instructions (linked above) which seemed to me to define this as not an absolute offence as you describe, but one where the mental state of the defendants was an element in guilt.

We do have some absolute offence in the UK, firearms posession is an example that I ran up against once where I bought an old flare pistol at an auction locally and had a visit from a policeman who confiscated it, and said that however innocently I had bought it, mere posession was the essense of the offence. No action was taken because it would have silly, but in theory I could have been banged up.

In most circumstances, and I think quite fairly, mens rea is an essential element of guilt over here.

[Burnaby49]

I was basing my case on the jury instructions (linked above) which seemed to me to define this as not an absolute offence as you describe, but one where the mental state of the defendants was an element in guilt.

We do have some absolute offence in the UK, firearms posession is an example that I ran up against once where I bought an old flare pistol at an auction locally and had a visit from a policeman who confiscated it, and said that however innocently I had bought it, mere posession was the essense of the offence. No action was taken because it would have silly, but in theory I could have been banged up.

In most circumstances, and I think quite fairly, mens rea is an essential element of guilt over here.

Way back in early 2013 I posted about how mens rea did not serve as a defense in Canada.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=5876&p=152837#p152837

It related to a Poriskyite who convinced two separate juries that he truly, truly believed what he was doing was legally correct and he was innocent. And the jury bought it and found him innocent twice. Why twice? Because mens rea is not a defense in Canada and, in both cases, the judge made an error in law by allowing him to argue it. After the first decision the Crown appealed and the decision was quashed and a new trial was ordered. Unbelievably, even though the Court of Appeal specifically instructed the new trial judge not to allow the defendant to argue mens rea the judge allowed it anyhow. The Crown appealed yet again and the Court of Appeal quashed the decision yet again with this comment;

[11] At his second trial, despite this court’s ruling, the respondent again took the position that the Act was beyond the powers of the federal government. However, he did not argue that he failed to pay taxes that he knew were owed because he believed the Act to be unlawful and so inapplicable. Rather, he explained his failure to pay taxes as arising from his belief that he was not obligated to pay taxes. Klundert took the position that he was not obligated to pay income tax because he believed the Act does not apply to him. Klundert testified that he is neither a “person” nor a “taxpayer” as defined in the Act.

[12] The “defence” offered by the respondent at his second trial was merely a nuanced version of the defence offered at his first trial, a defence this court held was unavailable to him.

[24] In his charge, the trial judge correctly told the jury that the respondent’s evidence that he was a tax protestor did not provide a defence to the charge of tax evasion and did not go to the issue of Klundert’s intent to evade the payment of taxes. However, when he put the position of the defence to the jury, he stated that it was the position of the defence that:

[A]ny rational person could not have intended to evade by acting in the manner of the accused. They should acquit unless they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that his stated intention to solely protest was not his honest intent.

[25] In so doing the trial judge erred in law. Where as a matter of law a defence is not available to an accused, it must not be put to the jury. Where defence counsel argue such a defence before a jury, the trial judge’s obligation is to clearly and unequivocally tell the jury that defence counsel was in error and that arguments to that effect cannot be relied upon in coming to a verdict.

So the appeals court ordered a third trial. This time the judge stomped all Klundert's attempts to argue that he really, really, really didn't believe he had to pay tax and the jury found him guilty of tax evasion in 2010.

Here in Canada it doesn't matter what people think, it's what they do, a standard I applaud. I don't care what goes on inside peoples heads, I care how they act their beliefs out. Many immigrants bring their home country customs here Canada, an entirely normal immigrant experience. However some customs and beliefs, while perhaps acceptable elsewhere, clearly constitute criminal activities here. If mens rea was a viable defense they'd all get off on the basis of cultural differences.

[Siegfried Shrink]

The point of my defense argument, such as it is, is what works in the USA, I willingly accept that Canada has its own rules.

[ArthurWankspittle]

.... where I bought an old flare pistol at an auction locally and had a visit from a policeman who confiscated it.....

Did he say it was Very naughty?

(I know. Pay the bailiff on the way out.)

[Gregg]

Of course, none of this matters because Heather is going to argue that the Jury Instructions are wrong and that she and Randy are innocent not because they're too stupid to know you can't just tell the Federal Reserve that you want your free money, but because she and Randy actually OWN the Federal Reserve, she foreclosed on it in 2013 and its hers!

The DA will let her have her way, and there you are, problem solved!

(Oh, would that the world worked the way I think it should)

[TheNewSaint]

As a defense I would be trying to establish in the minds of the jury that no matter how unrealistic the beliefs of the defendants were, they were sincerely held

Except that Randy Beane took steps to launder the money, buying a CD and immediately liquidating it. You wouldn't do that if you genuinely believed the funds were yours. There's your mens rea.

Furthermore, these two idiots have shown zero inclination they will accept competent advice.

What you suggest might actually be their best defense, but it's still not very good.

[JohnPCapitalist]

If the defendants were so deep in the woo that they truly believed that they had secret accounts that belonged to them, the charges could not be proven. Having trudged through this pseudo-legal crap for the last 9 months, I can believe that some people sincerely believe in the whole nonsense of birth bonds and the rest of it.

The jury instructions clearly state this offence depends on mens rea, a guilty mind, and the defendants had no such guilt as they were in a deluded state, and did what they did in the way that they did it because of reasons too arcane to explain. The continued bombardment of the court with nonsense paper makes no sense in the real world, but is just part of an essential process for the deluded.

IANAL, but I'll go ahead and guess that the government would seek to establish mens rea by other actions that would belie the defendant's statements that they couldn't have broken the law because they truly believed the money was theirs. In the case of Beane, he had an RV picked out and wired the money to the dealer mere moments after the cash hit his account. Maybe not literally moments, but the same day, IIRC from reading the indictment. The government could argue that he could have taken his time to do a little comparison shopping if he really thought that the money was his, since it wouldn't be going anywhere.

For Beane to claim that his belief in the secret government accounts is an excuse is like a bank robber trying to say he had no mens rea because he the bank was merely another stop on his rounds in a campaign to ask for voluntary corporate donations to his living expenses; the gun is irrelevant.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Furthermore, these two idiots have shown zero inclination they will accept competent advice.

What you suggest might actually be their best defense, but it's still not very good.

It's the Catch 22 defense. If they had the sense to use it, they are not mad. Therefore it is no defense.

By not using it, they are mad, and it is a defense, although admiiedly a shaky one. Best I could do before breakfast.

What I was wondering was if it is possible in the US legal system, for a seriously deluded defendant to have what might be a defense forced on them for their own good? Mind, I am not talking gibbering idiot here, just someone who acts and apparently thinks as if they were raised by Martians.

I grant the points that their innocent belief is mostly belied by the evidence, but in the complete absence of any other arguable defense that I can think of and the only way to avoid the prosecution having a complete walk over, discounting any argle bargle HATJ may come up with as the irrelevant tosh it is amost sure to be.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Furthermore, these two idiots have shown zero inclination they will accept competent advice.

What you suggest might actually be their best defense, but it's still not very good.

I sometimes wish they would take the same approach to medicine. Pro Se Surgery would make for an interesting niche TV show.

[JohnPCapitalist]

Furthermore, these two idiots have shown zero inclination they will accept competent advice.

What you suggest might actually be their best defense, but it's still not very good.

I sometimes wish they would take the same approach to medicine. Pro Se Surgery would make for an interesting niche TV show.

A brilliant idea. Fortunately, I wasn't drinking coffee at the moment. I'm not sure which would be the most entertaining part:

• The sales pitch where they convince people they're just as good as the de facto surgeons who don't have valid Hippocratic oaths of office on file.
• The procedure itself, where they do the same thing that killed the patient in their last 43 cases, expecting things to work out this time.
• The attempts to use Jack Daniel's or the local moonshine for anesthesia because the eeebil gummint won't give them permits to administer propofol.
• How they manage to face down irate family members who take it personally that Pops' pro se appendectomy fell short of the promised result. A little Second Amendment malpractice, anyone?

[TheNewSaint]

I think this is the idea behind Dr. Nick Riviera.

"Hi, everybody! Hi, Dr. Nick!"

[wserra]

The point of my defense argument, such as it is, is what works in the USA

I addressed it here. The short version: mistake of fact is a defense to a specific-intent crime. E.g., United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913 (9th Cir 2005). Conspiracy to commit money laundering - the only thing Tucci-Jarraf is charged with - is a specific intent crime (duh, intent to commit money laundering). A mistake of fact that negates that intent is a bona fide defense to the charge. Note that a mistake of law - "I didn't know that what I was doing was illegal" - is not a defense, except to certain tax crimes.

You will find case law that the mistake of fact must be "reasonable". Reasonableness is pre-eminently something a jury decides. The law is really off in the weeds as to what makes a mistake unreasonable as a matter of law - although anything Giraffe Tuchas dreams up should be presumptively unreasonable.