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

[Jeffrey]

Oh I thought it was the same +2 enhancement, was wrong.

I don’t know if this counts as proof or fits the requirements but the testimony from Randy was that he saw the TDA video by Harvey Dent, he send it to HATJ and she says the video is legit. I don’t know if he said it explicitly but it sure looks like Randy believed the scheme was legal because HATJ claimed to be an attorney. Plus the factualized trust paperwork she wrote for him would maybe count too?

[wserra]

The trial testimony is the best way to determine what facts are before the court. The PACER transcript restriction is set to lift in about two weeks. Have the idiots put the transcripts up on their site? Without the trial transcript, we're just guessing.

[Athis]

Will BZ deny her?

Three times before cock-crow.

For $30m in Silver CDs?

Lol! Nice one guys

[Gregg]

The trial testimony is the best way to determine what facts are before the court. The PACER transcript restriction is set to lift in about two weeks. Have the idiots put the transcripts up on their site? Without the trial transcript, we're just guessing.

The transcripts have been on The Moonbeam Channel for quite some time. I can't remember the testimony on that, its quite a lot of reading and not made any easier by reading it in their little window that makes it maddeningly impossible to get the top and bottom of a page on one screen.

[Gregg]

When the Guidelines were first adopted in the mid-80's, they were mandatory. Sentencing judges could only "depart" (the actual term for it) in specific, fairly well-defined circumstances (the chief one, of course, being ratting out your crimeys). Then the Supreme Court held that mandatory application of various Guideline provisions violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

Since Booker the Guidelines have been, well, guidelines. But they are very widely followed.

My Business Law professor in Grad School was on a commission that helped work out the current Sentencing Guideline Laws..

Professor Paul Fiorelli is Director of the Cintas Institute for Business Ethics at Xavier University. He was also selected to become part of an Ad Hoc Advisory Group to the United States Sentencing Commission in 2002-2004. This group included Attorney General - Eric Holder, and it reviewed Chapter 8 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines regarding organizations. The Ad Hoc Advisory Group reported its recommendations to the United States Sentencing Commission on October 7, 2003. After minor revisions, these recommendations were sent to Congress on May 1, 2004 and became law on November 1, 2004.
Each year the Supreme Court, through the Supreme Court Fellows Commission, selects four individuals to work in different branches of the judiciary. Paul Fiorelli was selected as one of the 1998-1999 Supreme Court Fellows to work at the United States Sentencing Commission. During his fellowship year he researched and lectured on compliance and ethics issues, employee confidentiality questions, and how internal auditors can play a major role in compliance programs. He also received the "Thomas Clark Fellow Award" from Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and the 2007 International Ethics Award from the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. In May of 2000 he was selected as a Senior Fellow for the Ethics Resource Center's Fellow's Program.

[Jeffrey]

Does he need to have explicitly stated that he thought it was legit because she was a lawyer or is this good enough?

[wserra]

Link, please.

[Gregg]

They can be downloaded and looked at, there are 6 volumes.

https://i-uv.com/universalcleanup-hatj- ... tatements/

[Gregg]

I'm sorry, 8 volumes. I don't know what day the above testimony is from, Jeffrey, do you know what day and better yet, what page?

[Gregg]

Wes, Randy's testimony is in Volume 4 at the end of the day, and continues into Volume 5 at the above link.

[wserra]

Thanks, Gregg.

After reading Beane's testimony, I agree with the Govt: the two-level "special skill" enhancement per Guidelines §3B1.3 is appropriate in sentencing Tucci-Jarraf. Here's why:

[Cross by AUSA]
Q And on July 7th, you also tell Buddy Gregg [the RV dealership - WS] to change the paperwork. Correct?
A Actually, when I got to the dealership on the 7th, the paperwork was ready with Randy Beane on it.
Q And so you told them that it has to be changed. Correct?
A Yes. Correct.
Q And needed to be changed and put into a trust name?
A Correct.
Q And you said that was on the basis of recommendation from your attorney. Correct?
A Correct.
Q All right. So you consider your codefendant your attorney. Is that correct?
A On this -- on the trust document, she's an attorney for the trust document. She knows all about the trust.
Q Is she everyone's attorney on the trust document?
A She created the paperwork.
[1-26-18 p 208]
...
Q Held in trust. Then why did you need to put the truck and the motor home -- why did it have to be registered in a trust name? Why can't it be registered to Randy Beane or Randall Beane?
A According to speaking with Heather, she said that that was the best way to do trust documents when you're doing things with a trust, so I was just trusting that that was the right way, correct way to do it, and it made sense what she explained to me.
[1-26-18 p 213]
...
Q Why do you need a red dyed thumbprint?
A That's your energetic signature.
Q Oh, okay. And so who instructed you to do that?
A Ms. Jarraf -- Tucci-Jarraf.
Q Where did you get the copies of the red dyed thumbprint?
A That's not a copy.
Q Where -- where did you get the document you provided to Buddy Gregg?
A From Ms. Tucci-Jarraf.
Q So she gave it to you?
A She -- she drafted the documents. I took the documents and had them notarized at the office supply store.
Q Okay. And so you had it notarized there. And who instructed you to use a red dyed thumbprint?
A There -- she told me to use blue ink, because the document's printed in black, use blue ink for the signature and red for the thumbprint, because in days gone past, when they used to sign letters, they used their -- they use their blood, so it represents blood, the red does.
Q Okay. So a green thumbprint wouldn't be sufficient?
A No.
Q That's not biometric?
A No. Well, I guess you could, but it's representative of the blood to use red.
[1-26-18 pp 223-224]
...

Q. I'm sorry. You talked about Miss Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf, your co-defendant.
A. Yes.
Q. And she was with you every step of the way during the financial transactions, wasn't she?
A. What do you mean by "every step of the way"?
Q. So, she was with you on Skype while you were conducting all the financial transactions on USAA's website; correct?
A. Most of them, but not all of them.
...
Q. And was she with you when you were conducting the financial transactions in purchasing the CDs?
A. Yes.
[1-29-18 pp 5, 6. Why aren't they numbering each day consecutively?]
...
[Cross by Giraffe Tuches. Good job, Giraffe. You elicited stuff the Govt hadn't.]
Q. -- for that statement?
A. -- heard -- when you first started telling us about all the documents you had filed for the -- for the One People's Public Trust, I started learning from the Blog Talk Radio shows that I had started listening to where you would come on and explain to us about these documents, and so that's where I learned all that information.
...
Q. And you had stated that you had heard about Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf about 2012 December?
A. Yes. And I remember specifically in December of that year, you came on and you told us Merry Christmas; that you had all the paperwork done and the documents filed; that all the accounts were now -- the accounts now belonged to the people.
[1-29-18 pp 29-30, 32]
...
Q. So you were unsure whether the Harvey Dent video and the process that he spoke about in that video regarding the Federal Reserve Bank and the routing numbers, whether that was -- excuse me -- whether that was linked to any work that I personally -- that Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf had done?
A. Well, that's why I called you to find out that this was actually linked to what you had filed, and then you confirmed that. So, yes, I did -- I still had my doubts, but at the same time, I wanted to -- if it was really true that this was linked to those documents, then I was ready to spread the word.
[1-29-18 pp 39-40]

There's more, but that's enough. Guideline sentence: 51-63 months.

[Chaos]

There's more, but that's enough. Guideline sentence: 51-63 months.

with a side order of Harvey thrown under the bus.

[waylonmercy]

It seems to me that Heather would have been the de facto owner of the RV if Randy had been able to list the OPPT trust as owner of the vehicle. As trustee, Heather controls all of the trust assets. Randy would’ve had no claim to the RV if the OPPT Was the registered owner.

[Jeffrey]

The rest of the transcripts have little nuggets like that where they keep incriminating each other. HATJ ends up fully throwing Randy under the bus by the end.

Would be fun to hear what Serra thinks the highlights of the trial were.

[notorial dissent]

As well as proving HAT and Randy's culpability in fraud and money laundering and it reinforces the very obvious facts that Randy is a terrifically gullible fool and potential HAT sucker. And then there's the whole HAT playing lawyer in the middle of it. Priceless.

[wserra]

Would be fun to hear what Serra thinks the highlights of the trial were.

All I had time to read was Beane's testimony.

[Athis]

It is kinda sad reading Randy's testimony and his childlike trust in Heather
He really doesn't have a clue

[noblepa]

When the Guidelines were first adopted in the mid-80's, they were mandatory. Sentencing judges could only "depart" (the actual term for it) in specific, fairly well-defined circumstances (the chief one, of course, being ratting out your crimeys). Then the Supreme Court held that mandatory application of various Guideline provisions violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

Since Booker the Guidelines have been, well, guidelines. But they are very widely followed.

Even though the sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, doesn't the judge need to state some rather specific reasons for a significant departure, or risk a successful appeal of the sentence?

[Jeffrey]

On the subject. How likely is supervised release.

[Gregg]

On the subject. How likely is supervised release.

I hope her whole "I'm only letting you try my case because I want to be nice, but be sure its only because I do consent that I'm here" routine might have foreclosed that possibility.