Suzanne Holland Chief Justice of the Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilhqot’in Nation

[notorial dissent]

Parsons thinks that he'll be free on parole from TN for some time before he has to begin serving his Federal sentence. Is that really how it works?

Not if the Marshalls are doing their job - which they usually do. They file a hold with the TN Dept of Corrections (or whatever it's called), and Parsons never sees the street.

Mostly because if he did they'd probably never see him again. Although since it is Parsons we're talking about, he'd do something else stupid and get caught, but I'm also pretty sure that fleeing would be pretty high on his agenda if he ever got out.

[eric]

Just an update with respect to the Chilcotin National Congress and Ms. Holland. As expected their law suit for a trillion and chump change was a resounding success

Order dated 25-MAR-2019 rendered by Kathleen Ring, Prothonotary Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Directions of the Court dated 05-MAR-2019 Result: 1)The Statement of Claim filed on 4-MAR-2019 shall be removed from the Court file and the filing fees returned to the Plaintiffs

http://apps.fct-cf.gc.ca/pq/IndexingQue ... ct_court=T
That being said, Ms. Holland appears to have had a stay of proceedings on her counselling to commit kidnapping:

Document Accused Cnt Location Date Time Room Reason Result Finding Canc.
105848-1 HOLLAND, ZSUZSANNA 1 Kamloops Law Courts 22-Mar-2019
09:30 AM 3A PI END SOP
105848-1 HOLLAND, ZSUZSANNA 2 Kamloops Law Courts 22-Mar-2019
09:30 AM 3A PI END SOP
105848-6 HOLLAND, ZSUZSANNA 1 Kamloops Law Courts 22-Mar-2019
09:30 AM 3A APP END APD
105848-1 HOLLAND, ZSUZSANNA 1 Kamloops Law Courts 07-Feb-2019
09:30 AM 2B APP IBD RGN
105848-1 HOLLAND, ZSUZSANNA 2 Kamloops Law Courts 07-Feb-2019
09:30 AM 2B APP IBD RGN

She put in an application for "reasonable grounds not satisfied" on 7 February and on 22 March at the Preliminary Inquiry the Crown issued a stay of proceedings, rather than withdrawing the charges which is significant. Since what happens at at prelim cannot be published I can't find out the rationale for doing so.That being said, Rudi Davis is not displaying crocodile tears of joy so it could be the same as her previous run in with the law over kidnapping a minor - stay of proceedings and then into a locked ward for a Not Criminally Responsible determination.

[eric]

I wasn't aware of all the details until recently, but at the height of Ms. Holland's activities, along with claims for "taxes", the made-up Chilcotin National Congress had the disconcerting habit of occupying vacant buildings and claiming them as their own. Don't worry folks, all this is perfectly legal, after all Queen Dorothy had signed the Court orders made up for her by Chief Justice Holland. There was this one - a school seizure:
https://www.mycariboonow.com/3662/kwale ... f-seizure/
Even better, Jonathan Holland (Ms. Holland's son) has resurfaced on youtube. A couple of interesting vids for your viewing pleasure. Here is the absolute authority courtesy of the Queen giving the Holland family the right to squat in somebody's vacation property:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5g9roJhwYs
It's too bad that the rightful owner didn't consent to the jurisdiction of the Stump Royal Family since he lives in Ontario. He showed up with a real court order, bailiffs, a moving van,and appropriate police presence. Oh I forgot to mention the physical muscle supplied by a couple of tow trucks and a CAT loader. For those of you used to polite English bailiffs and cries of "I do not consent" interspersed by references to the Magna Carta and Common Law Courts this was a very efficient operation. Door is kicked down, movers start taking everything out, loader clears the way for the Hollands vehicles to be dragged away. Cameo appearance by Ms. Holland demanding a police escort appropriate to her judicial status
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66QJGqfmr3Y

[grixit]

Will the owner sue for damages?

[notorial dissent]

That is a powerful fine collection of sovcit/fotl argle bargle, they'd do their southern cousins proud. All those wurdz and nothing of ANY value.

[eric]

Will the owner sue for damages?

I would follow the same advice my lawyer gave me when I was dealing with Derek Jonson/Kevin Kumar et al.... Yes you can sue them for costs, yes you will win, your chances of collection are between zero and nil, and I will have to charge you for my time. Unless the true owner wants to establish some sort of precedent that he is the real owner of the property (a matter that could probably be cleared up with a visit to the local Registry Office) it just isn't worth the effort. The Hollands have no assets and no income that matters - I noted that she has asked for extra time to pay her fines dating from her old failure to provide conviction. By my rough guesstimate the repo of his property probably set the owner back about 10 to 15 K$. It's a good solid house built of squared cedar and there are lots of Albertans looking for retirement/vacation properties of that nature so he will get his money back. That area is starting to become popular for the "semi-retired" - good scenery, lots of hunting and fishing, and run a little side business guiding, gold panning, clearing brush, etc.

[wserra]

"Only one thing stands between me and that property - the rightful owners."

- Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles. Quoted by Suzanne Holland.

[Frater I*I]

I have Mr. Pop-A-Squat's federal trial transcripts for any that are interested.

[eric]

I wouldn't mind taking a gander at them, mostly to keep aware of the strangest manifestations of claimed indigenous persons politics. The reasons are purely personal and private.

[Frater I*I]

I wouldn't mind taking a gander at them, mostly to keep aware of the strangest manifestations of claimed indigenous persons politics. The reasons are purely personal and private.

Email me at fraterii67@gmail.com and I'll send em

[Jeffrey]

Am I imagining things or wasn't the audio of the trial posted on Youtube?

[Frater I*I]

Am I imagining things or wasn't the audio of the trial posted on Youtube?

No, what is posted are his first trial in TN for aggravated assault and the hearings that precluded his federal trial.

[Jeffrey]

So turns out Parsons is a dirty liar. I thought from the audio that maybe there were some possible chain of custody issues with the rifle but nah. States evidence is water tight.

[alexhammer]

So turns out Parsons is a dirty liar. I thought from the audio that maybe there were some possible chain of custody issues with the rifle but nah. States evidence is water tight.

Yeah I agree. The chain of custody is fairly solid. To believe he is not guilty, Parsons had to convince the jury that the rifle he owned got inside a plane he owned and was flying without him knowing it. Lots of problems with this defense, not the least of which is that Parsons said he hadn't owned that rifle for 10 years... he sold it to a guy without paperwork who is now dead. Instead, his best defense was to insinuate that the FBI planted it because conspiracy theory.

Parsons is howling because his attorney didn't play the video of the aircraft that Rudy posted on YT. But he doesn't seem to realize that to play the video he must provide foundation about why the video was taken... opening the door for discussion of hiring a bounty hunter to free him and kidnap the judge and sheriff. I think it hurts way more than it helps.

[alexhammer]

So turns out Parsons is a dirty liar.

Also, yes, Parsons really is a dirty liar. I've listened to the entire TN trial and read the Federal transcript... he lies a lot. Wait until you get to day #3 of his Federal trial where he says that he's never been convicted of a felony!

[Jeffrey]

The prison phone calls where he asks Suzanne I think to remove the rifle (calls it item in the audio) from the plane is damning.

[notorial dissent]

So turns out Parsons is a dirty liar. I thought from the audio that maybe there were some possible chain of custody issues with the rifle but nah. States evidence is water tight.

Oh, say it ain't so...... I think it is a foregone conclusion that the juries in both cases didn't believe him at either trial, imagine that, even though he's such a charming, caring, warm, individual after all.

[grixit]

So turns out Parsons is a dirty liar. I thought from the audio that maybe there were some possible chain of custody issues with the rifle but nah. States evidence is water tight.

Yeah I agree. The chain of custody is fairly solid. To believe he is not guilty, Parsons had to convince the jury that the rifle he owned got inside a plane he owned and was flying without him knowing it. Lots of problems with this defense, not the least of which is that Parsons said he hadn't owned that rifle for 10 years... he sold it to a guy without paperwork who is now dead. Instead, his best defense was to insinuate that the FBI planted it because conspiracy theory.

So the FBI tracked down a gun that Parsons had transferred to some man, now deceased, in an unrecorded sale, so they could give it back to him. That's a level of detective efficiency and curtesy not usually associated with the bureau.

[alexhammer]

So the FBI tracked down a gun that Parsons had transferred to some man, now deceased, in an unrecorded sale, so they could give it back to him. That's a level of detective efficiency and curtesy not usually associated with the bureau.

So you're proposing a defense of "The FBI found and acquired my former rifle and a bunch of armor-piercing ammunition, waited until I had cut off my GPS monitor and got caught fleeing to Canada, and then covertly hid it in my unmarked aircraft as a gesture of goodwill."?

Grixit, I think your defense makes more sense than Parsons'.

Also, armor-piercing ammo? Seriously?!?!?! Does Chilcotin Nation believe they need to defend against an armored division?

[wserra]

Does Chilcotin Nation believe they need to defend against an armored division?

Armored beavers.