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

[Gregg]

Prison Pay Scale

Performance pay is deposited to the
inmate’s Trust Fund Account no later than the tenth day of each month for work
performed the previous month.
Grade 4.........................................$ 0.12 per hour
Grade 3.........................................$ 0.17 per hour
Grade 2.........................................$ 0.29 per hour
Grade 1.........................................$ 0.40 per hour
Maintenance Pay………………..$ 5.25 per month

Doesn't go too far when bottled water is $3.75 a 6 pack.

[morrand]

Anything more than say, two standard deviations from normal they love. All I'm gonna say and hope we don't wade away from topic on that.

To expand it in (I hope) the less political direction, the common thread in the belief always seems to be that THEY are trying to deceive you on everything imaginable. ("THEY," in this case, usually being The Establishment, or some part thereof, though not always.) Therefore, to get to The Truth, you have to go somewhere other than where THEY are trying to send you. It naturally follows that the further you get from the course that THEY have laid out, the closer to The Truth you must be. The proof is in how much louder the ridicule gets the further off the course you go; of course (within this belief system) it's known that, if you were not approaching dangerously close to The Truth, they wouldn't bother heckling you to try to get you away from it.

I see a lot of this kind of thing on Facebook, somehow. I bet you do too.

Anyway, the general political environment in the United States (and elsewhere, from the look of it) has gone flat out from squarely gonzo to full-scale freaky-deaky over the past couple of years. It's really not shocking that adherents to that set of beliefs would latch on to political themes like a lamprey latching on to...something a lamprey would latch on to.

[Jeffrey]

I think it unlikely. There's no way that her fabulizing about her experience would have been material to the outcome of the trial. And I think that a materiality test is critical to prosecuting perjury. It's pretty clear that the jury didn't believe anything she had to say.

Some context for readers that don't know what we're talking about, from Volume 6 page 77:

Prosecutor: Which bank did you work at?
Heather: I worked with all the different banks.
P: Which ones? Name me one.
H: I never worked -- was employed by a bank, but I worked with all the banks. I was employed with different companies, such as Treasury Finance AG until I left them. That was the last one that I worked with. Loan Stone Capital was another
P: Treasury AG Finance, where is that?
A: Treasury Finance AG, that was in Switzerland.
Q: And who are the owners of that company?
A: Those are done by bearer bonds -- or excuse me, bearer shares, so whoever holds them. You never know. Neither one of those "companies" exist...

It certainly seems material to me as a layman since she's trying to fool the jury into believing she's an expert in banking and thus her statements that her actions were legal are credible. Neither one of those companies exist. That's a pretty big lie in my book.

[JohnPCapitalist]

Prosecutor: Which bank did you work at?
Heather: I worked with all the different banks.
P: Which ones? Name me one.
H: I never worked -- was employed by a bank, but I worked with all the banks. I was employed with different companies, such as Treasury Finance AG until I left them. That was the last one that I worked with. Loan Stone Capital was another
P: Treasury AG Finance, where is that?
A: Treasury Finance AG, that was in Switzerland.
Q: And who are the owners of that company?
A: Those are done by bearer bonds -- or excuse me, bearer shares, so whoever holds them. You never know. Neither one of those "companies" exist...

I don't think the prosecutor needed to go into what Treasury Finance AG and Loanstone Capital were. I think someone here dug them up -- they're entities founded by one of the other original OPPT scammers -- the Swiss or German guy that's now in Costa Rica or Panama trying to stay out of the clutches of the law. So they were real corporate entities but they certainly weren't real banks.

Anyway, I think he was trying to establish that she had the knowledge to commit the crimes that she's accused of, and her bogus answer actually helped him more than if she said "I have never worked for a financial institution so I have no idea how the banking system works so I couldn't possibly have done what you accused me of."

[notorial dissent]

Its too bad that Heather wasn't ordered to pay restitution. If she had, I think that limits her commissary account, which they garnish to satisfy it. Yeah, I know, that's just mean. I never said I was nice.

Randy, on the other hand, I think was ordered to pay restitution, an amount he will of course never repay because its more than he's going to earn for the rest of his life.

Anyhow, I know if you have a restitution order they take a percentage of the sweet dollar a day prison pay (I don't know how much it really is, but I'm fairly sure its a piddling amount). But I wonder, do the likewise take money that Sheila and Bill F send in?

I think the main and salient difference is that Randy actually got away with something real, the RV, and HAT didn't actually get away with anything. He had something to seize, HAT hasn't got the proverbial pot as far as I know.

I think at this point it is pretty much safe to say that HAT has exactly zero real world credibility for just about anything and everything she might say, and her claimed CV is just that, claimed, not real.

[TheNewSaint]

The prosecution would never question Heather's credibility; Heather was the prosecution's star witness.

If she wasn't claiming to work for non-existent banks, she was talking about secret meetings in Antarctica, or traveling the world foreclosing countries with the $48 in her bank account.

It didn't take anyone long to see she was not only batshit crazy, but had zero discretion about incriminating herself and Randy.

[grixit]

Anyhow, I know if you have a restitution order they take a percentage of the sweet dollar a day prison pay (I don't know how much it really is, but I'm fairly sure its a piddling amount).

A dollar a day is hazard pay. It's what they pay the prisoners currently out helping to fight the ferocious wildfires we have here in California. I imagine that piecework in the cells is somewhat less.

[BoomerSooner17]

Anyhow, I know if you have a restitution order they take a percentage of the sweet dollar a day prison pay (I don't know how much it really is, but I'm fairly sure its a piddling amount).

A dollar a day is hazard pay. It's what they pay the prisoners currently out helping to fight the ferocious wildfires we have here in California. I imagine that piecework in the cells is somewhat less.

Isn't being in prison hazardous enough?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Randy, on the other hand, I think was ordered to pay restitution, an amount he will of course never repay because its more than he's going to earn for the rest of his life.

Wasn't his restitution to get the RV back? I seem to remember there was some issue with the title.

[wserra]

Anyone who wishes can read the details of BOP's implementation of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, but an inmate under an order of restitution is only entitled to spend $25/mo in commissary. How much more than that a particular such inmate may keep depends on a lot of stuff. I have many things I'd rather do on a Sunday morning than read and summarize them.

[Gregg]

Anyone who wishes can read the details of BOP's implementation of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, but an inmate under an order of restitution is only entitled to spend $25/mo in commissary. How much more than that a particular such inmate may keep depends on a lot of stuff. I have many things I'd rather do on a Sunday morning than read and summarize them.

So, the operative part is, No Soup for Randy. If you can only spend $25 a month it can't go very far on the heavily inflated prices they charge in the commissary. You can also go look at what they can buy and how much it costs at each prison's website. Really, I do encourage you to look, if all he has to spend is $25 a month, he'd better learn to be satisfied with the free food in the cafeteria. Aside from the chips and drink mix, there are some non-food items you kind of need that aren't provided for free you'll need to buy and the prices are a bit more than the local Walmart.

As far as the dollar a day, I posted it upthread, but Federal inmates can earn between 12 and 40 cents an hour and if they don't work for whatever reason they still get a whopping $5.25 a month in prisoner maintenance pay.

In regards to Randy's restitution and the return of the RV. He was ordered to repay the full price of the RV, along with I think about $60K in other stuff he paid off while it lasted. The government is siezing the RV and it will eventually be sold, but not for anything near the MSRP Randy paid for it, not to mention the costs of the sale and the storage and maintenance costs its incurred over the last year. Someone's going to get a bargain on it in an auction I guess, while Randy is going to have to spend the rest of his life attempting to pay the difference.

[notorial dissent]

They stuck restitution on Randy to get the money he spent on the RV back, and as you say, the RV wasn't worth what he paid for it the minute he took delivery. So, even when they do get around to eventually selling it it won't be near what he paid for it so, he'll he in hock for the rest of his life.

Prison is really going to such for Randy, and not just because of his winning personality.

[Gregg]

Where is "not a Sovereign Citizen" Bean going to serve? Has that been determined yet?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

"not a Sovereign Citizen" Bean

This is one of the recent aspects of Sov-Cits that makes me laugh.

"No your honour, I was not an outlaw holding up that stagecoach. I was a dandy highwayman."

The perambulating and vocalising mannerisms of a duck maxim holds.

[KickahaOta]

I think it unlikely. There's no way that her fabulizing about her experience would have been material to the outcome of the trial. And I think that a materiality test is critical to prosecuting perjury. It's pretty clear that the jury didn't believe anything she had to say.

A quick point here: Yes, a materiality test is critical to prosecuting perjury -- perjury is defined as a 'willful misstatement of material fact' in American law. But a statement is material if, if believed, it could influence the jury's verdict. It is not required that the statement actually succeed in influencing the jury's verdict.

But that leads to your other (unquoted) point, which is completely true: since perjury has to be willful, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the speaker knew that the statement was false.

By the way, perjury charges are extremely rare after a defendant is convicted in federal court. That's not because they couldn't legally happen; it's because there's generally no point. The prosecutor is free to argue that the defendant's sentence for the underlying crime should be higher because of the defendant's perjury at trial, and the judge is free to do just that. In the federal sentencing guidelines, perjury is considered a form of "obstruction of justice"; and if the judge finds that it's more likely than not that the defendant obstructed justice, that adds two points to the 'severity level' that the judge uses to calculate the guideline sentencing range -- in most cases, that translates to a sentencing range that's roughly 25% higher. Now the sentencing guidelines are advisory, so this finding doesn't have an automatic effect on the defendant's sentence; but judges still can and do use the guidelines range as a starting point, and judges still can and do dish out higher sentences to defendants who the judge perceives to have lied.

[Jeffrey]

Beanes sentencing memo says he’s got his South Carolina charges pending so I’m assuming they’re gonna move him there to have the state trial. Trying to find local reporters to see if they’d cover that but I don’t even know the date. I suspect I-UV will not cover it since covering it would mean confirming they lied about the non existence of the South Carolina warrant and charges.

[TheNewSaint]

Trying to find local reporters to see if they’d cover that

We can only hope there isn't a preseason soccer game, or an escaped rooster, that morning.

[notorial dissent]

I always assumed that it was a given that defendants could/would possibly lie on the stand. I also think the jury started NOT believing anything HAT said almost from the start, so her lies and perjuries only harmed her and the guilty verdict covered it all.

[Gregg]

Beanes sentencing memo says he’s got his South Carolina charges pending so I’m assuming they’re gonna move him there to have the state trial. Trying to find local reporters to see if they’d cover that but I don’t even know the date. I suspect I-UV will not cover it since covering it would mean confirming they lied about the non existence of the South Carolina warrant and charges.

I don't think it means that South Carolina is going to do anything, it just means that South Carolina CAN, but I don't think they will. Its a charge that's gonna get him 90 days or so, why bother? The Federal Court can't force South Carolina to take him, the language is just there to point out that a state does have a right to kick him while he's down.

Bottom line, Randy probably doesn't have to worry about going to some county jail in 13 years when he gets out of his current lease arrangements.

[Resume]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... ry-in-oval

President Trump met with one of the leading promoters of the "QAnon" conspiracy theory in the Oval Office on Thursday.

Who's next, BZ and Sheila?