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

[TBL]

Well, to be blunt, I had no idea it'd be that expensive. As I said, I am new to this. There's no way I could do that kind of expense. I could front it, but not invest that kind of cash permanently.

[alexhammer]

I agree, asking for a reason seems a bit odd. Most of the FOIA implementations I've read have a "public interest" caveat, so theoretically a judge could decide that, even without a sealed record, it's not in the public interest to release the transcript. He'd likely lose on appeal, but I doubt anyone would ever take it that far. That being said, I think if the reason was "researching the Sovereign Citizen and Freeman on the Land movements, no connection to either party in the case" it would suffice. And it's the truth.

I'd be happy to kick in like $50 for a copy if anyone manages to obtain it... I'm not well funded but want to contribute what I can manage.

Also, I know that this case was appealed. And the transcript had to accompany the appeal as an exhibit. Is the transcript a public record in the appeal case? Not sure if this makes it more accessible, just a thought...

[NYGman]

Where is that GURU Spirit, should we not have a GoFundMe page, asking their followers to fund it for us?

[wserra]

If I had to make a guess as to the reason for all the questions it's to make sure they aren't going to be buried in picked apart and scribbled on photocopies . . . I'm certain the court would be fine with it once they're satisfied your not Bundy cultist, with the CNC or a "Private Attorney General" planning to use it to further some ridiculous scam.

It actually wouldn't matter. A Bundy cultist or PAG who intends to scribble on them is equally entitled to the records of a public trial as you or I. It's settled law that a transcript can only be made unavailable to the public when the proceeding itself is properly closed, and only for so long as the reason for the closing is still valid. E.g., United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1982).

Most of the FOIA implementations I've read have a "public interest" caveat

True, but this isn't FOIA. It's the Sixth and First Amendments.

I'll kick in $100.

[wserra]

Also, I know that this case was appealed. And the transcript had to accompany the appeal as an exhibit. Is the transcript a public record in the appeal case? Not sure if this makes it more accessible, just a thought...

Yes, a record on appeal is a public record. It's typically bound. So go to the appropriate courthouse first thing in the morning, get it from the archives, and spend the rest of the day copying it, one bound page at a time, on a public courthouse copier that fails to copy half the page. Bring a whole shitload of quarters.

Copies may be as much as $1 per page.

[TBL]

I'll front the amount and kick in $50 myself, trusting the Q's community on their word, but I'd need firm commitments to get the rest of the funds. I wish I was in a financial position to pay the full amount but kids are expensive!

[TBL]

I sent the reporter a reply email answering her questions:

I am not a lawyer, I'm interested in the records for reporting reasons. I participate in an online community with a focus on commenting, debunking, and demonstrating the harm caused by the sovereign citizen movement. Mr. Parsons has been the focus of many discussions as well as Sue Holland and the entire Canadian fake Tsilhqot'in Nation that Mr. Parsons claims to be a part of. I'm not sure if the community is in a position to fund this endeavor or not, but if we do, I'd pay via credit card.

[Chaos]

but if we do, I'd pay via credit card. unless, of course, you take Re.

you forgot part

[Burnaby49]

Sounds about right for a two-day trial. The part that surprises me is the questions about your purpose. I don't know TN law, but part of a public trial is that, unless there is a very particular reason for sealing the record, it is available to anyone who can pay the reporter's fee. I'd be curious as to what would happen if you told them that you were planning on going camping, and you need some firestarter.

I had the same thought. Court files are available to anyone here in Canada. They might be unavailable while a trial is in session but apart from that there's no problem regarding access to court records. The only time I've been questioned was at the British Columbia Court of Appeal registry where they wanted to know if I was a party in the appeal or the legal representative of a party. I said no to both and they gave me the file. I still have no idea why they quizzed me.

[alexhammer]

I'll front the amount and kick in $50 myself, trusting the Q's community on their word, but I'd need firm commitments to get the rest of the funds. I wish I was in a financial position to pay the full amount but kids are expensive!

I'm firm on kicking in the $50. I assume you want that paid in silver? Or maybe just PP / Venmo / normal money.

[alexhammer]

Jeffrey, remember how confusing the whole bit about Mike's friend that bought the AR-15 and recently died? You know the one who had never had access to the plane, but maybe hid the AR-15 on the plane? Well, that changed yet again: https://youtu.be/ayQjd2Jpgms?t=537.

[Jeffrey]

Nah that's not new, he's said that Jerry had access to the plane in another call.

Here's what confuses me though, Mike says "Jerry Thomas is a real human being". Did someone contact Rudy accusing him of making up Jerry or is Rudy reading the Quatloos thread or viewing YouTube videos?

[Frater I*I]

Nah that's not new, he's said that Jerry had access to the plane in another call.

Here's what confuses me though, Mike says "Jerry Thomas is a real human being". Did someone contact Rudy accusing him of making up Jerry or is Rudy reading the Quatloos thread or viewing YouTube videos?

That would be me

I've been keeping LoneDummy updated on Pop-A-Squat's legal woes and filings, along with commentary as to why he'll fail.

Recently I provided screen shot's of some pages of Pop-A-Squat's trail testimony, where he says the "Jerry" never had access to the aircraft, a direct contradiction to what he told LoneDummy a week before, trying to claim that "Jerry" may have put the rifle there. I also told him that that I didn't believe "Jerry" even existed, and now Pop-A-Squat says not only is he "a real human being" but the AUSA didn't ask if "Jerry" had ever been in the aircraft, but he asked if "Jerry" had ever flown the aircraft.

Spoiler alert: Pop-A-Squat lied...again. He also goes off on me in the call as well, he refers to me as "Traitor".

[notorial dissent]

Nah that's not new, he's said that Jerry had access to the plane in another call.

Here's what confuses me though, Mike says "Jerry Thomas is a real human being". Did someone contact Rudy accusing him of making up Jerry or is Rudy reading the Quatloos thread or viewing YouTube videos?

That would be me

I've been keeping LoneDummy updated on Pop-A-Squat's legal woes and filings, along with commentary as to why he'll fail.

Recently I provided screen shot's of some pages of Pop-A-Squat's trail testimony, where he says the "Jerry" never had access to the aircraft, a direct contradiction to what he told LoneDummy a week before, trying to claim that "Jerry" may have put the rifle there. I also told him that that I didn't believe "Jerry" even existed, and now Pop-A-Squat says not only is he "a real human being" but the AUSA didn't ask if "Jerry" had ever been in the aircraft, but he asked if "Jerry" had ever flown the aircraft.

Spoiler alert: Pop-A-Squat lied...again. He also goes off on me in the call as well, he refers to me as "Traitor".

Way to win friends and influence people there, calling LoneDummy and Mikey on their collective lies.

[alexhammer]

Nah that's not new, he's said that Jerry had access to the plane in another call.

Here's what confuses me though, Mike says "Jerry Thomas is a real human being". Did someone contact Rudy accusing him of making up Jerry or is Rudy reading the Quatloos thread or viewing YouTube videos?

That would be me

I've been keeping LoneDummy updated on Pop-A-Squat's legal woes and filings, along with commentary as to why he'll fail.

Recently I provided screen shot's of some pages of Pop-A-Squat's trail testimony, where he says the "Jerry" never had access to the aircraft, a direct contradiction to what he told LoneDummy a week before, trying to claim that "Jerry" may have put the rifle there. I also told him that that I didn't believe "Jerry" even existed, and now Pop-A-Squat says not only is he "a real human being" but the AUSA didn't ask if "Jerry" had ever been in the aircraft, but he asked if "Jerry" had ever flown the aircraft.

Spoiler alert: Pop-A-Squat lied...again. He also goes off on me in the call as well, he refers to me as "Traitor".

Way to win friends and influence people there, calling LoneDummy and Mikey on their collective lies.

Frater, I happen to agree with ND here. Your personalized, targeted trolling is impressive. Well done.

BTW I really enjoy Doazic's occasional videos on Parsons. It's funny as hell to see the lies side-by-side in that way. I was just listening to part of his 2009 trial and caught another glaring lie... and this wasn't a case of memory mutation. He lied on Monday about things that happened on Friday. Such delusion, much lithium.

[notorial dissent]

You almost need a spreadsheet to keep track of the assortment of lies these two come up with.

[Jeffrey]

You almost need a spreadsheet to keep track of the assortment of lies these two come up with.

I am convinced at this point that Mike has lied about every single detail of his life story.

[notorial dissent]

You almost need a spreadsheet to keep track of the assortment of lies these two come up with.

I am convinced at this point that Mike has lied about every single detail of his life story.

Oh, most certainly, and I would guess multiple times on each, all totally different.

[alexhammer]

You almost need a spreadsheet to keep track of the assortment of lies these two come up with.

I am convinced at this point that Mike has lied about every single detail of his life story.

Oh, most certainly, and I would guess multiple times on each, all totally different.

I'm going to vent about the most recent trigger.

In Mikey's 2009 trial, on Friday mid-afternoon he called his wife Pat as a witness. She didn't seem like a bad witness tbh, she answered Mikey's questions the way he had obviously coached her to. On cross-examination she seemed believable and honest, even answering questions that Mikey vigorously objected to. On redirect, he mostly asked her about the same things. The last question Mikey asked Pat was "Do you have anything else you want to tell us?" which was quickly objected to and she didn't answer. Mikey then ended her testimony, released her as a witness, and called his next witness. No contention on closing her testimony. No break either.

Apparently over that weekend Mikey figured out what Pat didn't get to say. So first thing Monday morning he recalls her as a witness. When the judge asks why, because he basically needs to let Mikey violate rules of evidence to call her like that, Mikey responds, "She wasn't finished testifying" and "The prosecution asked her a question, then the judge immediately took a break and I wasn't allowed to finish asking my questions." The judge asked Mikey specifically what she would testify to, and he just didn't answer.

So Mikey either changed his own memory from 3 days ago to justify recalling Pat, or he simply bald-faced lied to the judge in trying to recall her. I'm not sure which is worse.

[Jeffrey]

Here’s my latest trigger.

At some points during testimony Mike claimed the dog was shot 5 times, at other points he claims the dog was only hit once. 70 year old Laxton somehow getting 5 hits on a moving target seems implausible to me. More disturbingly Mike says the dog died in his arms but on at least one occasion he says the dog was still alive when he went to confront the neighbors.

Given that one of the few points all three witnesses agree on is that the dog ran a substantial distance towards Mike after being shot, that the bullet fragments were found in the L2 which would miss most vital organs and that the vet said it wouldn’t be a killing shot; I think the dog was probably still alive when Mike carried it back and hid it.