11/16/17 Heather/Randy Jurisdiction - Judge Shirley's Report & Conclusion

[15] The Defendants apparently do not espouse the definition of “judgment” from the same Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act from which they pluck the definition of “United States.” In the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, “‘Judgment’” means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt.” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(8) (emphasis added). This is but one example of the numerous internal inconsistencies in the Defendants’ arguments. This example illustrates how the Defendants pick and choose various snippets of law—the very law that they claim no longer exists—and then misapply those fragments to try to shore up their fantastical legal theory.

At the motion hearing, Defendant Tucci-Jarraf argued that an indictment can only be issued by consent.  She claimed this applies to her and all other people.  Her incredible and absurd argument is that no criminal charges can be brought against her, or against anyone, without that individual’s consent.  Under her reasoning, anyone can commit any criminal act (burglary, robbery, assault, drug  trafficking,  or  even  murder)  but cannot  be  prosecuted,  unless  they  consent  to  being prosecuted.  Even the least educated among us would scoff at this notion.  However, those intent upon preying on others would relish such a proposition.  Such a system would be untenable, and no nation, country, state, or community could exist under such a preposterous proposition.