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

[wserra]

As usual, BZ get's in all backwards.

I feel the brief is brilliant. . . . He is clearly drawing a picture of not only H’s competency but her mastery of just what IS going on 😉

From the brief:

From the start, Ms. Tucci-Jarraf challenged the court’s jurisdiction along with other aspects of the case. She did so by filing a rash of documents that for the most part contained nonsensical ramblings (p 4)
...
The record is replete with evidence and red flags regarding her competency both to stand trial and to represent herself (p 5)
...
From the very outset of the lower court proceedings which began in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia following Ms. Tucci-Jarraf’s arrest in that district, Ms. Tucci-Jarraf’s statements and participation were incoherent and bizarre (p 14)
...
With the next United States magistrate judge to handle the detention hearing, Ms. Tucci-Jarraf’s dialogue became even more bizarre, rambling, and out of touch with reality—even with regard to such simple things as an oath (p 17).
...
Even basic questions from the magistrate judge went unanswered or were answered in nonsensical ways (p 25)
...
Ms. Tucci-Jarraf’s rambling and seemingly delusional story that she laid out pretrial for the court continued during trial (p 30)
...
Moreover, Ms. Tucci-Jarraf continued to incriminate herself with meandering and meaningless explanations of why she did what she did (p 34)

Yep, a competent master, to be sure. Why am I reminded of the phrase "very stable genius"?

[Jeffrey]

Notice that BZ turns a blind eye to HATJ hiring an attorney for the appeal.

[Siegfried Shrink]

BZ may think the attorney is a Galactic Advocate in disguise. Or something.

It seems to be, from the extracts, a fair shot, but the trial transcripts give more of an impression of a wilful pattern of behaviour than insane ramblings as implied.
In other words, she could have chosen to play by the book, but did not.

[Jeffrey]

The lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong but this looks like a slam dunk to me. The prosecution expressed that they had concerns about her possibly being crazy and the statute requires them to test her for competency under those circumstances which they did not.

[wserra]

It is not in the least a "slam dunk". Appellant's brief - of course - indulges in a fair amount of cherry-picking. See how you feel after reading the govt's brief.

Moreover, appellate courts hate second-guessing trial courts in issues like competency. Judges are people too, and the undertone is "She got what she wanted".

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'm intrigued as to what the US position is on pig headed vs delusional vs incompetent vs mentally impaired.

There are plenty of high functioning individuals who post Flat Earth videos on You Tube. They are quite delusional, but they don't meet the threshold of being mentally incompetent.

[Burnaby49]

Moreover, appellate courts hate second-guessing trial courts in issues like competency. Judges are people too, and the undertone is "She got what she wanted".

Same in Canada. If they opened the door to appeals on trial court's decisions on facts there would be no end to appeals. So the standard for appeals in Canada is that questions of law, whether the judge interpreted the law correctly, is just correctness. But the level of review for a trial court's interpretation of fact is "palpable and overriding error", a much higher barrier. The Supreme Court of Canada has said quite decisively that a trial court's decisions on questions of fact must be given a high level of deference on appeal.

[Resume]

Notice that BZ turns a blind eye to HATJ hiring an attorney for the appeal.

I'm at a loss to understand how a thinking person can read that brief and not understand it asserts that Heather is far from competent, and her crazy ramblings as a defense were just that. How BZ could pretend that it demonstrates Heather's "competent mastery" is just silliness.

[AndyK]

The appeal appears to be a class instance of the "spaghetti defense."

Throw enough spaghetti at a wall and eventually something sticks.

[wserra]

The appeal appears to be a class instance of the "spaghetti defense."

With three issues briefed? I don't agree.

Throw enough spaghetti at a wall and eventually something sticks.

When you're appointed counsel, the alternative is an Anders brief. Anders briefs are disfavored, strongly so by some appellate courts. The three issues raised are all arguable, and well put at that. Terez did exactly what he was supposed to do.

That, of course, does not mean that he'll win.

[Gregg]

I read it and to tell the truth I'm almost persuaded. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the case was remanded for retrial. I don't think it will do her much good, and I'm positive she's not gonna be happy being tried again and having to sit and keep her mouth shut at a new trial.

[notorial dissent]

Am I not remembering correctly that she was in fact examined for competency at least once prior to trial ever starting? And that she was asked repeatedly if she wanted a lawyer, and refused, and was given a back chair, whatever the term is, one anyway, which she disregarded at every turn?

[Gregg]

And her appeal is basically "my client did batshit crazy things because she's batshit crazy Just look at the transcript at all the batshit crazy things she said. The Judge should have seen she's batshit crazy because, come on, Stevie Wonder could have seen it".

If they have oral arguments, I assume this will be in Cincinnati, in which case I may even go see for myself.

[notorial dissent]

I think this particular appeal was a certainty if she didn't file more crazy on her own, and that remains yet a possibility.

[TheNewSaint]

If I were responding to this brief, I'd cite Heather's detention hearing. She argues very clearly and persuasively why she should not be held, behaves like a trained lawyer would, and doesn't use any of her wacky UCC language. She can turn off the crazy when it suits her purposes.

And so many exchanges with the judge went like this:

THE JUDGE: Do you agree to tell the truth?
DEFENDANT: I am the source of all that is.

(one page of arguing and Heatherese later)

THE JUDGE: Ok, so, does that mean you agree to tell the truth?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE JUDGE: Okay then.

Heather's inability to understand the simplest of courtroom procedures wasn't borne from mental illness, but was a calculated attempt to get her proclamations on the record.

[notorial dissent]

If I were responding to this brief, I'd cite Heather's detention hearing. She argues very clearly and persuasively why she should not be held, behaves like a trained lawyer would, and doesn't use any of her wacky UCC language. She can turn off the crazy when it suits her purposes.

And so many exchanges with the judge went like this:

THE JUDGE: Do you agree to tell the truth?
DEFENDANT: I am the source of all that is.

(one page of arguing and Heatherese later)

THE JUDGE: Ok, so, does that mean you agree to tell the truth?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE JUDGE: Okay then.

Heather's inability to understand the simplest of courtroom procedures wasn't borne from mental illness, but was a calculated attempt to get her proclamations on the record.

I quite agree, it wasn't that she didn't understand or know what was going on but that she had an agenda that was all her own and she intended to play it to the hilt. Entirely calculated.

[Jeffrey]

Heathers Gofer, Terran, denial takes an interesting angle:

https://terrancognito.blogspot.com/2019 ... actus.html

Yesterday I read Heather's court appointed "appeal lawyer" Dennis Terrez's plan for Heather's appeal which can be summarized as "Hey she's crazy therefore innocent".... with lawyer like that who needs enemies right??? I have not spent any time in corresponded with the man at all unlike the prior lawyer Francis, he felt compromised by the Chinese from the get go. Extensive travel to China seminars and all. You can see the filings by Dennis Terrez over at BZ Riger's web site, I won't be posting them here.

Yes, the Chinese are the ones trying to get Heather declared mentally ill.

[notorial dissent]

I hate to break it to poor Terran, but outside of her ever decreasing tiny group of followers, NO ONE knows or gives a flying RA about who or what HAT is. If they think of her at all it is as that crazy woman in prison. So much for universal and omnipotent.

[Resume]

Well, some of the crazed followers she conned are still crazed, and conned.
https://i-uv.com/universalcleanup-usca- ... ent-324323

alien6 says :REPLY
February 8, 2019 at 2:19 pm
I guess that there must be some ‘high-level’ legal theory espoused by her briefs filed. So, I was wondering what, if any legal implications would ensue if she was actually found ‘incompetent’ to stand trial? Would a judge order a mistrial and have her go through this all over again? Surely, that would not be pleasant, or would he just declare her innocent and let her go? This would be fine unless there were some legal implications about her competency to live a ‘normal’ life unhindered by imposed legal requirements concerning her mental health.

Also, is there anyone here who could anwer a question regarding the outcome of this case?

Just for a moment assuming that HATJs objectives in this case are met, ie., she wins the case, goes free, etc. What are the financial implications of this outcome? So, can we just all freely access our TDA accounts with supposed millions of dollars int them and spend them freely unhindered by worries of govt agencies attempting to stop us or arresting people for accessing their accounts. Just how would this work? I have some feeling that the govt. would find other alternatives in preventing public access to TDA accounts. Knowing that the govt. operates as it does, this is just my opinion that they will stop at nothing when they have their own objective in mind.

G-ahead alien6, access your value. Dare you.

[notorial dissent]

Some kinds o' stupit there just ain't no cure for.