notorial dissent wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:31 pmOnce in a generation, aren't you being a wee bit overly optimistic?
Perhaps I am. Sufficiency of the evidence almost never works. Federal prosecutors don't charge unless they have the goods.
Anyway, Gang of Idiots, Wednesday Division, Pt II.
The transcript restriction recently expired for Parsons' federal trial. I knew that
Parsons' testimony would be comedy gold, and it is. Before getting there, though: before he testified, Parsons offered various documents which his attorney clearly realized were inadmissible. Knowing that the court would not admit them, the attorney made offers of proof as to their contents for the record (at pp 574-600, 602-606). I wish the docs themselves were in the docket, and not just marked as exhibits. The whole crew is there: Holland, Bryfogle, Dorothy Boyd, the Stumps, the "determination" of the Chief Justice of the Tsilhqot'in (Holland, of course) that the TN state court had committed a legendary injustice in convicting Parsons (pp 594-595), and much more. Our friend Frater even gets a shout-out, albeit mispelled (p 607). The govt's objection to each was one sentence, and the court's refusal to admit each was one sentence more.
The Deputy U.S. Marshall whom Parsons insisted on calling as a witness
has already been discussed in the thread. The testimony (pp 620-627) amounted to Parsons shooting himself in both feet, both hands and his nether regions. He probably didn't notice.
So next - and last, from the point of view of the evidence - was the issue of Parsons' testimony. His lawyer obviously believed that Parsons had decided not to testify. Fortunately for us, that turned out not to be the case. Parsons shocked his lawyer (pp 610-612) by announcing his desire to testify at the last second. Probably not the best way to go. It begins at p 627.
First he hands his lawyer - in front of the jury - the questions he wishes asked. He states his name as "Ambassador Michael Parsons", and babbles on about the "Tsilhqot'in nation" for more pages than I would have believed the court would permit (yes, there were objections). Courts are reluctant to cut off a defendant who testifies, for obvious reasons.
So why was this Canadian tribal dignitary in Nebraska? I'll let him answer:
I was traveling en route on official business for the Tsilhqot'in Nation, specifically to finalize the timber deal with the Tennessee buyer -- or the Tennessee logging company that's going to manage the logging operation for the Tsilhqot'in Nation and the buyer for the Chinese company. We had a meeting scheduled where there was going to be a ceremonial process through Native American customs of -- it's called making of relations, and a sacred giveaway would be performed. As a Native American minister, I would be officiating that, and then the documents would be signed. We had ceremonial pens, and everything was ready to go forward so that the Chilcotin can start establishing development of their own natural resources.
British Columbia? A Tennessee logging company? The
Chinese? Don't ask me. The Walmart bags on the plane? They were
ceremonial gifts . . . These were just a token of the sacred giveaway in the -- you know, the cultural identifying with the traditions of the Cherokee Nation and -- which I'm from, it's very similar to the Tsilhqot'in Nation, and many nations practice this same philosophy as the -- as a Native American medicine man ordained through the Native American Church in Nemenhah, the traditional customs follow --
Ended by a somewhat belated objection.
Ah, the Tsilhqot'in Walmart.
Anyway, cross-examination. The AUSA's first question - where was Parsons born?
Well, I don't reference your references to city and state. In the United States, which is a corporation, they use those terms. This is referred to in the Native culture as Turtle Island, but effectively you would be looking at what you consider as Tennessee and --
. . .
I was not born in the United States. The United States is a corporation listed, and we've discussed that off the record. They don't want the jury to know that, but it's a corporation. It's not a place. I know that sounds odd, but it's --
The AUSA goes on for a while, shooting those fish in the barrel, but probably should have just laughed and sat down.
The bottom line, from the minute entry of August 30, 2018: "Jury received case at 3:33 p.m. Jury returned to the Courtroom at 4:51 p.m. with a verdict of guilty." A fool and his freedom are soon parted.