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

[NYGman]

BZ: All is Cosmically Delicious. (heart)

What the heck have the Chinese got to do with it? Did she send them a copy, too?

I think she's gonna fire the lawyer, it looks to me like BZ is implying that he's not listening to her higher understanding of the law and is going to have to wise up or get out of her way.

More interesting than the Chinese, Why does is sound like she is eating Lucky Charms, with a few doses of acid.

[wserra]

For the lawyers, can her lawyer file the appeal against her wishes?

No, and that didn't happen. In seeking an extension to file her brief back in December, Terez wrote the following to the court:

Since the appointment as appellate counsel, my client and I have communicated both by letter and by telephone conversations
...
Ms. Tucci-Jarraf and I have been communicating by both telephone and mail, which has been beneficial in allowing us to share more complicated analyses of legal issues for each other’s consideration. [Translation: "They jiggle! They jiggle!" - WS]
...
Ms. Tucci-Jarraf, who has agreed to this extension request

She's been on board up 'til now.

[notorial dissent]

Did I misread something further back, I thought her PD had already filed the appeal to the affect that she was incompetent and shouldn't have been allowed to proceed pro se?

FWIW, I whole heartedly agree that she is incompetent as a lawyer, but don't think her beliefs put her outside of the wide latitude of crazy allowable for a pro se.

[Resume]

The appeals must have been filed because the govt has asked for a time extension to respond.
https://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... .05.19.pdf

[wserra]

Her brief was definitely filed. We linked to it, quoted it, and discussed it in this thread. My point was that she was in the loop.

[Resume]

Her brief was definitely filed. We linked to it, quoted it, and discussed it in this thread. My point was that she was in the loop.

Yeah I know. I linked to it back on Feb 7. Just trying to clear up any confusion on that point.

[notorial dissent]

Her brief was definitely filed. We linked to it, quoted it, and discussed it in this thread. My point was that she was in the loop.

I think more likely her poor PD was telling her, "OK, we've got our brief/appeal ready to go and we're filing it, and we're going with you were incompetent and didn't know what you were doing and shouldn't have allowed to proceed pro se, since we've basically got nothing else" and she is hearing "OK, we're going to file a bunch of majik wurdz and it will all go away and you can file all your majik papers again to help it along" and that is just what she did. I seriously doubt if she paid one whit of attention to anything she was told.

[Gregg]

I'm curious as to the legal standard of incompetent.

I thought incompetent was crazy-mental health-cognizant of reality and generally wondering ''what did I do wrong?" kind of incompetent. In other words, "Bless her heart, she doesn't understand that there are no fairies in the garden".

Her legal argument, as submitted by council, seems to be "she might have passed the Bar and be a JD, but she doesn't know what she's doing and is a really incompetent lawyer". I agree with that, but hey, she insisted she know better and now, well, she's still not convinced but she does have 5 years to think about it.

Is not be qualified to practice law a defense for being convicted when you went to trial pro se? She's not, by any evidence I see, crazy in the legally insane way. She's nuts, but she knows right from wrong. She just doesn't believe right and wrong are at the same place as most of us.

Does she have much of a case here?

[Jeffrey]

I think the problem was me phrasing my question poorly. I wanted to know if it was possible, as they are claiming, that the lawyer filed the appeal without her approval. In other words can your lawyer say you’re crazy if you don’t want them to.

To me it looks like the strategy of telling the lawyer one thing while lying to the followers and saying China is to blame and that she never talked to the lawyer etc. looks like manipulative and deceptive behavior.

[BoomerSooner17]

I think the problem was me phrasing my question poorly. I wanted to know if it was possible, as they are claiming, that the lawyer filed the appeal without her approval. In other words can your lawyer say you’re crazy if you don’t want them to.

To me it looks like the strategy of telling the lawyer one thing while lying to the followers and saying China is to blame and that she never talked to the lawyer etc. looks like manipulative and deceptive behavior.

In other words, Heather's usual.

[Dr. Caligari]

I'm curious as to the legal standard of incompetent.

I thought incompetent was crazy-mental health-cognizant of reality and generally wondering ''what did I do wrong?" kind of incompetent. In other words, "Bless her heart, she doesn't understand that there are no fairies in the garden".

Her legal argument, as submitted by council, seems to be "she might have passed the Bar and be a JD, but she doesn't know what she's doing and is a really incompetent lawyer". I agree with that, but hey, she insisted she know better and now, well, she's still not convinced but she does have 5 years to think about it.

Is not be qualified to practice law a defense for being convicted when you went to trial pro se? She's not, by any evidence I see, crazy in the legally insane way. She's nuts, but she knows right from wrong. She just doesn't believe right and wrong are at the same place as most of us.

Does she have much of a case here?

There are three separate standards for three separate issues.

1. The insanity defense focuses on the defendant's mental state at the time the crime was committed, and the issue (in most states) is whether the defendant knew what she was doing (e.g., if she stabbed a human being, did she think he was a martian) or knew that it was wrong (e.g., "God told me I had to kill that man").


2. Competence to stand trial focuses on the defendant's mental state at the time of trial, and asks different questions: did the defendant understand that she was on trial for a crime, and did she have the ability to consult with her lawyer and assist in her defense.

3. Finally, the issue here is, even assuming HATJ had the mental competency to stand trial, was she competent enough to represent herself. I am not an expert in this field, but my understanding is that very few courts have ever found that someone was competent enough to stand trial but not competent enough to represent themself.

[KickahaOta]

It used to be that "competency to stand trial" and "competency for self-representation" were, for all intents and purposes, one and the same.

In Indiana v. Edwards, the Supreme Court held that states could impose a "competency for self-representation" standard somewhat higher than the "competency to stand trial" standard.

However, to the best of my knowledge, no appeals court has held that a trial court erred by not imposing a higher "competency for self-representation" standard.

[Resume]

Sheila reads Tucci-Cucci's scribblings.
https://youtu.be/aY0Ki2E8uTo

She is confused by a couple of words. Just a couple? I don't know if she cries over this gibberish because I can only listen to so much of this crap.

[notorial dissent]

Does spoken Tuccis-Giraff make any more sense than the written version, particularly when the speaker doesn't really understand what they are reading?

[alexhammer]

As far as self-representation, my understanding is that most courts actually draw a distinction between:

* Is the defendant competent to stand trial?
...if so and the defendant wants to represent himself...
* Is the defendant competent to decide whether to represent himself vs representation by an attorney?
...if so, and he decides to represent himself...
* Is the defendant competent to represent himself?

I think the bottom two are often lumped together into a single decision, but the bottom line is if a judge thinks that a person simply cannot represent himself or decide to represent himself, he can appoint an attorney over objection.

If I'm wrong please correct me.

[Gannibal]

Sheila reads Tucci-Cucci's scribblings.
https://youtu.be/aY0Ki2E8uTo

I jumped to a couple of random points and was struck by how HATJ handles the "copy" and "carbon copy" lines on her correspondence. She "copies" "any and all artificial, legal fictions, and other juristic persons or entities," and "carbon copies" "all states of body and all states of consciousness."

I, uh, don't think she actually sent those copies out. Would be one hell of a mail merge.

[Resume]

I, uh, don't think she actually sent those copies out. Would be one hell of a mail merge.

And one hell of a lot of golf pencils.

[KickahaOta]

As far as self-representation, my understanding is that most courts actually draw a distinction between:

* Is the defendant competent to stand trial?
...if so and the defendant wants to represent himself...
* Is the defendant competent to decide whether to represent himself vs representation by an attorney?
...if so, and he decides to represent himself...
* Is the defendant competent to represent himself?

I think the bottom two are often lumped together into a single decision, but the bottom line is if a judge thinks that a person simply cannot represent himself or decide to represent himself, he can appoint an attorney over objection.

If I'm wrong please correct me.

Conceptually, one might think of these as different questions. But until 2008, the issue of "Is it even possible for someone to be competent to stand trial but incompetent to self-represent?" was an open question in US courts -- the Supreme Court had never weighed in, and the federal courts and most state courts operated on the assumption that the answer was "No." Even after Indiana v. Edwards in 2008, the lines are still very unclear -- the Supreme Court said "Yes, the standard for self-representation can be measurably higher than the standard for trial competence," but didn't even try to actually draw the acceptable line between them.

If you have any tolerance for legalese at all, it's worthwhile to read Faretta v. California, the 1975 case that established the right of self-representation (by a vote of 6-3 -- a close case), as well as Indiana v. Edwards, the 2008 case that I mentioned above. Both cases show how incredibly squeamish the Court has been about self-representation -- even while acknowledging a constitutional right to self-representation, the Court's decisions freely discuss how actually exercising that right nearly always leads to disaster.

[Jeffrey]

Think I figured out what the China talk is about. A twitter account possibly belonging to the court appointed attorney has a lot of links to news articles about China. They’ve spun this as him being a Chinese agent that goes to seminars in China.

So far have only found him going to seminars in his own state. Unless there’s legal seminars given in China in English for public defenders that I’m not aware of.

[notorial dissent]

Expecting an even remotely rational reason for anything this crowd does is basically an exercise in futility. Just take it that there excuse is 'cause reasons and save yourself the mental sweat.