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

[Jeffrey]

http://commongood.typepad.com

Mr. pages blog. Will attempt to make first contact. Please be courteous if you plan to join in, these guys spook easily.

[notorial dissent]

If I am reading the aforementioned page correctly, the owner is what my grandmother would have charitably called a crank, and his contributors have been sniffing too much orgone. They believe, since I don't see any evidence of thought process going on.

[TheNewSaint]

If the UCC is law then the work that HATJ did as of 2012 should be recognized, If not we need to know why

Try reading the case documents. They explain this at length. Especially document 62, the section entitled "The Defendants’ Claims Have No Legal Support and Defy Common Sense." Available for your review at i-uv.com.

[notorial dissent]

If the UCC is law then the work that HATJ did as of 2012 should be recognized, If not we need to know why

Try reading the case documents. They explain this at length. Especially document 62, the section entitled "The Defendants’ Claims Have No Legal Support and Defy Common Sense." Available for your review at i-uv.com.

They also conveniently forget that the sacred documents were officially and permanently round filed by the WA SOS not long after she filed them. So they are far from unrebutted and unrefuted.

[KickahaOta]

For those inquiring about what role appointed counsel has on appeal:

In most jurisdictions, if the convicted defendant says 'I want to appeal', then counsel has to file a notice of appeal.

If counsel thinks that there are actual nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, then counsel has to brief those grounds.

What if the defendant wants to appeal, but counsel thinks that there's no sensible grounds to appeal? This is a tight spot for an attorney, because the attorney is legally and ethically bound to appeal, but also legally and ethically bound not to advance frivolous arguments (even if the client wants to). In most cases, this is where an Anders brief comes in -- named for the case, Anders v. California, where the Supreme Court laid out the guidelines. In an Anders brief, the attorney basically says 'Here are some things that at least superficially might be grounds for a valid appeal; but also, here's why I don't think that they're actually reversible errors.'

So, for example, an Anders brief might say (in fancier words): 'The defendant wants to appeal, but I can't see any reversible errors, so I'm asking to withdraw. This is a guilty plea case, and before accepting the plea, the judge didn't advise the defendant that he would have the right to call witnesses to testify on his behalf if he went to trial. That's a violation of Rule 11. But Rule 11 errors are only reversible if they might have affected the defendant's decision to take the plea; and in this case the plea agreement mentioned this right, and the defendant has been through four previous federal trials and clearly understands how they work and what witnesses do. So ultimately that argument has no chance of success. Also, the defendant might argue that I was constitutionally ineffective at trial. But that sort of error can almost never be raised on direct appeal, and I don't really think that I was ineffective. So I don't see how that could work either, at least not on direct appeal. Nothing else looks even remotely promising.'

At this point many jurisdictions have 'checklists' of points for the attorney to comment on, to make the process more standardized -- 'Were there any errors in the indictment? Were any motions to suppress evidence denied? If there was a guilty plea, have you asked the defendant whether he wants to withdraw that plea?' And so on.

The court then sends a copy of the Anders brief to the defendant, and the defendant has an opportunity to send in a response. (Usually they don't. When they do, they're often crazy -- but sometimes they do point out something that the attorney missed.)

Then the court looks over the parts of the record covered by the Anders brief and the defendant's response (if any), and generally makes one of three decisions:

• "Yup, this is frivolous. Affirmed."
• "There's an issue worth mentioning that wasn't covered in the brief or in the response, so we'll discuss it, but ultimately we agree that it doesn't work either. Affirmed."
• "We think that there's an issue here that actually isn't frivolous. The Anders brief is denied. The motion to withdraw is denied, and you're ordered to give us a proper appellate brief on this issue." (Or sometimes "The motion to withdraw is granted, but you're in hot water for submitting a lousy brief, and we're appointing new counsel to give us an appellate brief."

[TheNewSaint]

For those inquiring about what role appointed counsel has on appeal:

Good stuff. Thanks for the explanation.

[morrand]

So, for example, an Anders brief might say (in fancier words): 'The defendant wants to appeal, but I can't see any reversible errors, so I'm asking to withdraw. ...' ... The court then sends a copy of the Anders brief to the defendant, and the defendant has an opportunity to send in a response. (Usually they don't. When they do, they're often crazy -- but sometimes they do point out something that the attorney missed.)

Your simplified Anders brief reminds me of something. As a side note, a few years ago, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized a small problem with this routine, which Judge Posner explained ably:

...[W]e take the opportunity to question another bit of legal jargon. In innumerable cases in which a criminal defendant's lawyer files an Anders brief our court states, usually as a prelude to granting the lawyer's motion to withdraw and dismissing the appeal, that as long as the lawyer's brief is "facially adequate" we'll confine analysis to the issues discussed in the brief and in the defendant's response (if any) to it. See, e.g., United States v. Vallar, 635 F.3d 271, 289 (7th Cir.2011); United States v. Maeder, 326 F.3d 892, 893 (7th Cir.2003) (per curiam). By "facially adequate" we mean that the brief appears to be a competent effort to determine whether the defendant has any grounds for appealing. That appearance reassures us that the issues discussed in the brief are the only serious candidates for appellate review and so the only ones we need consider. We should say this rather than recite a formula — "facially adequate" — unlikely to be intelligible to the prisoner to whom the Anders order is addressed; with his lawyer having been allowed to withdraw, the prisoner may have difficulty understanding the what and why of the order. We should say for example: "Counsel has submitted a brief that explains the nature of the case and addresses the issues that a case of this kind might be expected to involve. Because the analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that counsel has discussed, plus any additional issues that the defendant, disagreeing with counsel, believes have merit." See United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir.1996).

United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). And ever since, that is almost exactly the language they have used, minus the "additional issues" when none have been raised.

[wserra]

So, for example, an Anders brief might say

"My wacko esteemed client wishes to appeal this order. I am fairly sure this is the case, as he filed the notice of appeal himself, handwritten and mailed from the jail. I am aware that there is controlling precedent in this Circuit that such an order is not appealable. [Citations omitted.] I have explained that to my wacko esteemed client. I have given him copies of the cases. He can't read is not impressed. Therefore, were this order actually appealable, I am sure that Your Honors would agree that, for the following reasons, it was wrongly decided."

My one and only Anders brief.

[notorial dissent]

Would not a better word have been persuaded? That seems to he the favored word with the judicial set from what I've seen. Otherwise that is delightful, clear, concise, and to the point.

At this juncture, what obligations docs the "elbow counsel" have since HAT is still basically pro se? She's already filed what I'm sure the court will construe as a Notice of Appeal, which, if she stays true to form will be followed by more marked up documents "duly rejected for due cause" having no relevance or real value in the real world.

[Gregg]

For those inquiring about what role appointed counsel has on appeal:

snip

But what if the defendant went to trial pro se? Does standby counsel have any responsibilities?

[Gregg]

So, for example, an Anders brief might say

"My wacko esteemed client wishes to appeal this order. I am fairly sure this is the case, as he filed the notice of appeal himself, handwritten and mailed from the jail. I am aware that there is controlling precedent in this Circuit that such an order is not appealable. [Citations omitted.] I have explained that to my wacko esteemed client. I have given him copies of the cases. He can't read is not impressed. Therefore, were this order actually appealable, I am sure that Your Honors would agree that, for the following reasons, it was wrongly decided."

My one and only Anders brief.

I've said for years that the best Lawyer Jokes aren't about Lawyers, but told by Lawyers.

Q: SO, whaddaya call a bus half full of lawyers going over a cliff?

A: Underutilized capacity.

I'll get me coat...

[Jeffrey]

https://i-uv.com/universalcleanup-pacer ... -ecf-hatj/

Appeal filed apparently.

[Resume]

Wow, an actual filing as opposed to the normal gibberish.

Nevermind.

https://i-uv.com/universalcleanup-pacer ... 5-18-hatj/

[AnOwlCalledSage]

THIS IS A COMMAND TO CURE BY IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF FROM UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION; DUE RECORD OF LAWFUL AND LEGAL STATUS, OWNERSHIP, TITLE, AUTHORITY, AND HOLDER-IN-DUE-COURSE OF HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF; NOTICE OF ACTORS WITHING OR ABUSING THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT(S).

Dang it. If only other convicted felons could come up with such beautiful legal arguments, the States would save a fortune in providing penitentiaries!

TL;DR
I don't want to be in prison. Let me out.

[Resume]

I'm pretty sure BZ tweeted something like this to (the real) Donald Trump. If one of his handlers brings this to his attention, there's no telling what he'll do. I'm actually a bit fearful.

[AndyK]

There was an episode of M*A*S*H wherein Major Charles Emerson Winchester III (after finding a rubber chicken in his teapot) stated firmly "Get me the hell out of here!"

I expect to be hearing something along the same lines from the designated standby counsel very soon.

Heather has seriously overdosed on the KoolAde.

A Bill Of Lading???

Yo, Heather -- IT IS NOT COMMERCIAL!

[KickahaOta]

But what if the defendant went to trial pro se? Does standby counsel have any responsibilities?

Short answer: Maybe.

Long answer:

If a pro se defendant sticks to that choice on appeal, then no, standby counsel generally has no role on appeal.

It's important to remember that (the Supreme Court has said that) there is no right to "hybrid representation" -- if you're representing yourself, you don't have the right to also have an attorney represent you. Yes, a standby counsel may help the defendant during a pro se trial; but standby counsel is typically there for the court's convenience, not the defendant's -- standby counsel is basically there to provide a real-time translation of the defendant's statements into legalese and/or realitese, so that the judge can concentrate on other trial tasks. The need for that sort of buffering largely goes away during appeal, since unless the case requires oral argument, everything is typically done in briefs and motions rather than in in-person interactions.

Of course, many defendants who go pro se at trial choose to be represented by counsel on appeal. In that case standby counsel typically steps back into the traditional role of appellate counsel.

[notorial dissent]

IMHO, if the defendant had any sense they would want a competent attorney on appeal. HAT has N0 SENSE, and I am pretty sure she is going to go it pro se, and it won't be pretty, but it should be over pretty quick, although I'm sure she will continue to throw paper at the court.

Man but that is a powerful lot of utterly useless crazy. Not unexpected but of no real world value.

[AndyK]

Putting on my "Amazing Carsoni" turban:

"Appeal dismissed for failure to state anywhere near a legitimate cause. Appellant's claims fail to refer to any issues of trial but merely repeat timeworn, Internet-based arguments which have been held to be frivolous thousands of times. Costs awarded to government and appellant is enjoined from further filings without the express permission of the court."

SCOTUS: : "Cert. denied, but thanks for the filing. The clerks laughed their heads off."

[notorial dissent]

More like state anything coherent or having anything to do with the case at hand.