Sunday, November 19, 2017

The Gypsy Wranglers Performing at the Black Sheep in Amherst

~ The Gypsy Wranglers at the Black Sheep on November 19, 2017 ~
Tuesday, March 01, 2016 - Amherst, MA (Archive Article)

Band: The Gypsy Wranglers have a unique style
of acoustic swing music

Passersby stepped into The Black Sheep Deli on a Sunday afternoon seeking shelter from the teeth-chattering temperature, and were greeted, just beyond the doors, with the sound of lively music echoing throughout the entire eatery. The 30-year-old establishment’s entryway doors stand between two windows large enough for pedestrians strolling the sidewalk to see inside the cafe. A window underneath a black awning with the word “Bakery” written on it in gold letters exposed a few wooden booths for patrons to sit and enjoy a meal while the opposite window revealed a raised platform supporting a five-member band and a variety of instruments including a banjo, mandolin, harmonica, and even a trombone. For 20 years, the combination of string, wind and brass instruments has made the Gypsy Wranglers stand out from other swing dance bands in the area. 

The band name was influenced by 1930s gypsy jazz guitarist Jean “Django” Reinhardt whose musical compositions integrated numerous jazz standards or tunes commonly used by jazz musicians, which are typically recognizable to listeners. An example of such a tune is “Puttin’ on the Ritz.” 

The Gypsy Wranglers originated in 1996 and throughout the years have released four albums, replaced a few band members and incorporated additional instruments. 

The band’s newest CD, “Movin’ Day,” is available in CD-ROM format or digital download for $10 at: http://bit.ly/1PNJLxn. 

The four original members played at the Leverett Coop for two years before its owner sent them elsewhere for worry of the negative impact it might be having on the business. The four contacted the Amherst deli owner shortly after and have played there from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. every Sunday since 1998. 

“We often say, ‘You can probably go anywhere in the world right now and you’ll never find another band playing this song with this instrumentation,’” band member Terry Reed said. “I think our uniqueness is that everybody comes from a slightly different background and each person brings their own songs, and then we all learn them.” 

Meet the band members 

Doug Tanner 

The first instrument 68-year-old band creator Doug Tanner of Wendell ever laid his hands on was the trumpet, but he wanted to play a string instrument. 

“When I was a kid, I got the trumpet because I saw a guy on the TV who played the trumpet with a puppet and I had to choose an instrument for the school orchestra, so I picked the trumpet,” he said. 

Tanner picked up the banjo after discovering Bob Dylan and Pete Seeger as a teenager, and he took the instrument with him on a cross-country expedition, where he played on the street for a few extra bucks and for anyone who wanted to listen. 

“I learned to play the banjo by playing on the streets of San Francisco in the ’60s,” he said. “I would play at Golden Gate Park and people would give me money to buy strings.”

Eager for another challenge after mastering both the trumpet and the banjo, Tanner moved to Massachusetts in his mid 30s and taught himself how to play the fiddle, which is his instrument of choice in the Gypsy Wranglers. 

“For two years I practiced four hours a day. At age 30 it’s kind of tough to learn how to play the fiddle, but the only way to really do it is by doing it a lot for a concentrated period of time,” he said, adding that string instruments, including the violin or the viola, are tough to play as a child and even more difficult for adults, due to the difference in finger dexterity.

Terry Reed 

On top of playing the guitar and the banjo in the band, 68-year-old Terry Reed of Orange has also been in the band since its creation and uses his visual design degree to create the CD case covers as well. 

Reed’s musical journey began as a preteen when he played the drums alongside his brother, who played the organ. Both boys eventually grew out of the children’s size instruments and purchased higher quality pieces to play in a high school band called The Town Criers. 

The band was more successful than the brothers anticipated. They performed covers of popular songs for school dances, recorded some CDs and even won some battle of the bands contests. 

“I was playing the drums, my other brother played the guitar, my other brother played the organ and our cousin played the bass,” he said. “Back then we thought, ‘Hey, we’re just like the Beach Boys,’ because they were three brothers and a cousin.”

When the teenage band made adjustments to add an additional band member to resemble the popular five-man 1960s band, Reed gave up the percussion spot to the newest addition and became the band’s vocalist and guitarist. The band broke up when the boys graduated from high school and went separate ways, but everyone continued to play music in some fashion. 

In the 1970s, Reed moved to Boston to attend Berklee Music School with some friends who, upon his arrival, decided to travel across the nation playing music instead of receiving formal education. He didn’t attend the school either, but stayed behind working various jobs and eventually met his wife and moved to western Massachusetts. 

Reed attended an improvisational performance at the Warwick Inn and was introduced to Tanner and his accompanist, Craig Hollingsworth. The duo invited Reed to the Leverette Coop the next week to see if a banjo would work well with the accordion and the fiddle. The group then added bass player Nick Blakias to the mix and called themselves the Gypsy Wranglers. 

“Their music was kind of a stretch for me,” Reed said. “I was more simple blues and Rock ‘n’ Roll and they were playing complicated songs, but I’m glad I got in that because it inspired me to play better.”

Terry Nagel 

Terry Nagel, 67, of Belchertown auditioned for the Gypsy Wranglers as a bass player and was cast as the trombonist. 

Nagel is a multi-instrumentalist like many other bandmates. He played the trombone throughout grade school and before graduating and entering adulthood, he found a mandolin in his grandmother’s attic and put it to good use in his garage band. His instrument of choice, however, lives in the brass family. 

“I had a little band in high school called the Mongers,” Nagel said. “I played the electric mandolin and we were really, really not good. It would have been punkrock if it had been 20 or 30 years later.”

“I started playing the trombone when I was in fourth grade, so I would have been 9 years old,” he added. “I wanted to play in the high school band and they didn’t need trumpets and they didn’t need anything except trombones and clarinets and I chose the trombone. The rest is history. I stuck with it.” 

Nagel said the trombone isn’t usually played by itself, adding that he was relieved to find a band that accompanied the instrument so well. 

“It’s an instrument that you add once you have everything else you need,” he said. “It’s low brass and you tend to be playing in harmony with something else.”

Rico Spence 

Rico Spence, 65, of Westhampton is the band’s percussionist. He’s a self-taught drummer who learned by tapping his fingers on tables and recreating the beat of a song. 

“I learned by humming it in my brain and then try to put my fingers where I hear it,” he explained. “Drumming is just part of a heartbeat.”

Rico didn’t have any intentions of joining the Gypsy Wranglers until he was having brunch at the Black Sheep with a friend and noticed the band didn’t have a percussionist. He asked to play the snare drum with them at the next performance. His first debut was a success and was invited back the following week and became the band’s official drummer. 

“I don’t know music. I just love the beat,” he said. 

Lynn Lovell 

Lynn Lovell, 69, of Hatfield is the band’s bassist. Per her mother’s request, she was sent to her school’s music department to learn an instrument and was encouraged by the orchestra conductor to give the double bass a try. She fell in love with its musical quality and dedicated her life to the instrument and played in various bands including the Holyoke Civic Symphony and the Pioneer Valley Symphony Orchestra before joining the Gypsy Wranglers. 

She realized how talented Spence was after she accepted work as a weekend accompanist in Goshen in the Whale Inn and learned how to play the electric bass on the job without any notes on a music stand. 

“As a trained classical musician, you get really hung up on the page and you always want to see notes in front of you, so improvisation is something from Mars,” she said. “Rico wasn’t formally trained. He did it all by ear and to me, that’s amazing that people can do that and not be trained.”

Lovell met Nagel while playing in the South End Jazz Band together. He was also in the Gypsy Wranglers and was scouting for a replacement bassist and invited Lovell to play with them in Leverett to get a feel for the band. She was eager to join but was busy raising her children, playing in other bands and running her bass rental business. In 1999, she joined the band on a part time basis and continues to play with the group to this day.

The band

Doug Tanner of Wendell, Terry Reed of Orange, Terry Nagel of Belchertown, Rico Spence of Westhampton and Lynn Lovell of Hatfield are The Gypsy Wranglers.

The band said it has entertained audiences throughout New England and Canada with its unique brand of acoustic swing music at festivals, concerts, weddings, fairs, schools, radio broadcasts, dances and cruises for many years.

The Valley Advocate’s Reader Poll has named The Gypsy Wranglers “Favorite Swing Band” six years in a row.

The band performs at The Black Sheep Deli, 79 Main St. in Amherst from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. every Sunday. The deli is open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday. 

Contact The Gypsy Wranglers at 413-323-6032 or 978-544-2067.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Angel of Sirius Took Founder, Bruce Davidson, Home Yesterday

~ Valhalla Movement video with Bruce in 2014 ~

Dear Ones,

I am writing to let you know about my father. He is in his last days and has decided that he is ready to go. The suffering has become too great. the machines too much and the treatment too invasive and he is not improving. 
May you send him a prayer and light a candle. May you remember him in the fullness of life. May you think on any wisdom that he offered or any skill that he taught you. 
May you celebrate him, rather than mourn him. 
Please send kindness and love to our family-my mom who has been with him for 41 years. My 97 year old grandmother who is struggling that he he leaving first, to my aunt and uncle in California and to my sister and I, as we negotiate this time. 
And to the Sirius Community past and present and everyone who will feel the hole he leaves behind.
Thanks Dad for daring to dream, for daring to be different, for dedicating your life to spiritual purposes, for all your hard work, all the people that you have touched, and the legacy that you leave behind. 
May you go in freedom.

I will let you know soon when we will come together to celebrate him.

LLani Davidson

Bruce Davidson, a Founder of Sirius Community, passed away @5:13 pm November 15, 2017

~ Llani Smiling with Bruce Yesterday ~

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Completed Work of OPPT Proves the United States Doesn't Exist

Transcript October 18, 2017 Jurisdiction Hearing,
Eastern District Court of Tennessee
Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf and Randall Keith Beane

Transcript October 18, 2017 Jurisdiction Hearing,
Eastern District Court of Tennessee
Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf and Randall Keith Beane

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
                                                          
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                
Plaintiff,                                                 
                                                                
vs.                                                          Case No.: 3:17-CR-82
                                                                
RANDALL KEITH BEANE,                 
HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF,
                                                                
Defendants.                                         
                                                          
PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE C. CLIFFORD SHIRLEY, JR.

October 18, 2017
9:35 a.m. to 11:24 a.m.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:  CYNTHIA F. DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE
                                                 ANNE-MARIE SVOLTO, ESQUIRE

                                                 Assistant United States Attorney
                                                 United States Department of Justice
                                                 Office of the United States Attorney
                                                 800 Market Street
                                                 Suite 211
                                                 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902

FOR THE DEFENDANT: RANDALL KEITH BEANE, PRO SE
                                                RANDALL BEANE        
                                                Blount County Detention Center
                                                920 East Lamar Alexander Parkway
                                                Maryville, Tennessee 37904

FOR THE DEFENDANT: STEPHEN G. McGRATH, ESQUIRE
(As Elbow Counsel)         9111 Cross Park Drive
                                                Suite D-200
                                                Knoxville, Tennessee 37923

REPORTED BY:

APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):

FOR THE DEFENDANT: HEATHER ANN TUCCI JARRAF, PRO SE
                                                HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF           
                                                105 Orchard Lane
                                                Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

FOR THE DEFENDANT: FRANCIS LLOYD, ESQUIRE
                                                (As Elbow Counsel)
                                                9111 Cross Park Drive
                                                Suite D-200
                                                Knoxville, Tennessee 37923

(Call to Order of the Court)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We are here for a scheduled motion hearing in Case 3:17-CR-82, United States vs.  Randall Keith Beane and Heather Tucci-Jarraf.

Here on behalf of the government are Cynthia Davidson and Anne-Marie Svolto.

Is the government present and ready to proceed?

MS. SVOLTO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Here on behalf of the defendant as elbow counsel, on behalf of Defendant Beane, is Stephen McGrath.

Is the defendant ready to proceed?

MR. BEANE: Yes.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: And as elbow counsel on behalf
of Ms. Tucci-Jarraf is Francis Lloyd.

Is the defendant present and ready to proceed?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Heather is ready to proceed, yes.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Before the Court today is the filing of Ms. Tucci-Jarraf's praecipe to enter dismissal with prejudice and Mr. Beane's motion to join in that filing. So there's a number of other tangential motions or files that  have occurred since that time. We'll take those up separately. Mr. Beane, is it correct that you want to join in Ms. Tucci-Jarraf's praecipe filing?

MR. BEANE: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you know what a praecipe?

MR. BEANE: No.

THE COURT: Do you claim this Court has no jurisdiction over you?

MR. BEANE: Yes.

THE COURT: Can you explain the legal basis for that claim?

MR. BEANE: No.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Tucci-Jarraf, how do you pronounce your filing?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Praecipe.

THE COURT: Praecipe. Okay. And what do you understand a praecipe to be?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Praecipe is a command and it's an order.

THE COURT: Okay. So if I understand right, you contend that you can order this Court to do certain things?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Based on the UCC filings that were supplied to everybody in this room, that is actually a perfected judgment, which was also supplied to -- at the time, Department of Justice had a public integrity, Jack Smith, who -- well, until last month --

THE COURT: I think you're doing what you do in your filings, which is going on and on and not --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm giving you the legal basis for actually having the authority to deliver a praecipe.

THE COURT: I will ask you that probably in a minute.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

THE COURT: That wasn't what I asked you.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Based on my authority --

THE COURT: No.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- that is in the UCCs --

THE COURT: That wasn't what I asked you.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That is why the praecipe -- I'm not commanding any office in this room, but I am just stating, based on the judgment that was provided to everyone, this is the command of how to move forward.

THE COURT: A praecipe is an order to do certain things.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Correct.

THE COURT: Is it your position that you can order me to do certain things?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It is my position that I have the authority to -- with the filings, this Court does not exist.

The positions of the United States of America, United States, the alleged defendant -- or excuse me, the alleged plaintiff in this Court does not exist, and all proof has been provided to show it was foreclosed and terminated.

And, therefore, Anne-Marie Svolto -- and, I'm sorry, Cynthia's last name.

MS. DAVIDSON: Davidson.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Davidson.

Thank you,

Ms. Davidson.

They are here of -- in their own personal responsibility.

So there's been no proof to show that it exists or the authority or authorization. So it's not that I'm
commanding anybody. If we're in an official capacity, it is that their official capacities do not even exist.

THE COURT: So this is not a motion to dismiss your indictment?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It is not a motion. It's a praecipe --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- for dismissal with prejudice based on the authority and UCCs, which are still unrebutted.

THE COURT: Did I understand at one time you were a lawyer?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I am a lawyer. I was at one time an attorney, a licensed, barred attorney.

THE COURT: Okay. And during that time, didn't you always as a lawyer file motions requesting orders, and the court issued those orders?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: As a barred, licensed --

THE COURT: That's a pretty simple answer.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- attorney?

No. As a barred, licensed attorney, when I worked for the government, there  were motions, there were pleadings, there was a lack of understanding, basically, an incompetency, which were just  -- it's in ignorance.

However, when I canceled my bar license and worked with the judges and DOJ at the time, it was the praecipe that -- you have to have standing to be able to do a praecipe.

So that's what we have here. My standing has -- and authority has already been supplied to everybody in this room. And that's what this praecipe is.

THE COURT: And when you say you have to have standing to file a praecipe, what's the legal authority for that statement?

Where do you find something that says you have to have standing to file a praecipe?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, if I'm commanding someone, it's the judgment that I provided you in the UCC. It's a perfected, registered, and duly noticed, and secured  judgment that was done five years ago in 2012.

THE COURT: What's the judgment?

What's it entitled?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The judgment -- well, the declaration of facts, is that the document that you're referring to?

THE COURT: You prepared a declaration of facts, and you consider that a legal judgment?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. There was a declaration of facts. In 2012, a foreclosure occurred, not just on the corporation called the United States of America, but also on every single corporation, private corporations, operating  under the guise of government.

So all of those corporations were actually closed and terminated.

And that was with the assistance and the help of those in the Department of Justice, those in the federal and state courts here, as well as internationally.

THE COURT: Do you have a document entitled "Judgment"?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The UCC, under the UCC, there is no -- you don't need a courtroom for a judgment.

In fact, most --

THE COURT: I didn't ask about a courtroom.

You kept saying that you have a judgment.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's a perfected judgment.

There was no rebuttal of the declaration of facts. And DOJ, as well as the U.S. Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of State, everybody was notified, as well as IMF, IRS, Counsel of Privy -- Privy's Counsel, everybody  involved, World Bank, United Nations, you have Secret Service. Everybody was involved in that foreclosure back in 2012 and 2013.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: So when it went unrebutted, it's a matter of law at that point.

A declaration unrebutted stands as law.

And it was entered into the Uniform Commercial Code, which is a notification system, and that is actual due notice.

However, there were courtesy copies and courtesy notices, personal service done around the world on top of that.

THE COURT: All right. I've read all that.

And not one of those things was what I asked you.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You asked me about my authority.

THE COURT: I did not ask you that.

You keep saying that.

I've never asked you that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You asked me if I could command you.

THE COURT: That was way back.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

THE COURT: If you will actually listen -- if you want to go ahead and finish your speech, I'll listen to it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No, that's all right. Please --

THE COURT: But whenever you're ready to answer my questions, if you'll just listen to them, most of them are yes or no or very specifically focused.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

Please repeat your question.

THE COURT: Yes. You referenced a judgment repeatedly.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes.

THE COURT: What document is that judgment?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That judgment was actually the declaration of facts, which I provided to everyone. It is Document 201 -- 2012127810.

Here, I'll read it from here so that it's quicker for you.

THE COURT: I don't want you to read it.

I just --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. Just the judgment numbers. You asked me what the judgment was.

I'm giving you actual numbers.

So, again, 2012127810, 2012127854, 2012127907, and 2012127914, along with the commercial bill, which is number 2012114586, and the true bill, which is 2012114776.

That is the actual complete judgment that is commercially perfected in -- that was the one I'm referring to.

THE COURT: And what are those numbers?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Those are Uniform Commercial Code -- it's the UCC registration numbers from the actual foreclosure that was done with all the parties therein named.

THE COURT: So is it the UCC financing statement that you filed that you consider a judgment, or is it the declaration of facts that you prepared that you consider a
judgment?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. Actually, it goes all the way back to the perpetuity, which would be the -- that was actually done with members of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
That was UCC Doc No. 2000043135.

That was a perpetuity filing at that time, and it was a UCC-1.

That was done in May 4th, 2000 -- and that, these -- the documents that I told you about for the declaration of facts lists every single document that were amendments to  that perpetuity done in 2000.

That's never been rebutted to this day.

And it was perfected --

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to ask you one last time, and then I will proceed, and I will note that you did not answer the question.

Okay?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I object to that.

I have.

THE COURT: No, ma'am.

You have not. I have asked you, and you get a choice to answer this question or you can go
on with a whole bunch of numbers.

Is the judgment that you reference the UCC financing statement filings, or is it the declaration of facts that you've prepared?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Which preparation?

I've done a number of declaration facts in this case, or are you talking about the declaration of facts that the judgment actually was?

Please clarify that, only because there's a number of declaration of facts.

THE COURT: No. You referenced a judgment.

I tried to get you to tell me what it was.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Sure.

THE COURT: And you haven't.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay. So the 2000 --

THE COURT: You have no document that says "Judgment" on it.

Is that correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. The actual filings --

THE COURT: Is that yes or no?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I do.

THE COURT: Let me see it. Hand me a document that says "Judgment" on it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's dated November 28th.

I'm going to hand you my personal copy.

THE COURT: I'll be glad to hand it back.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This is the actual judgment.

Oh, I'm sorry, here's two more pages. That's the actual judgment. Just for the record, I've actually already provided --

THE COURT: All right. The document you've handed me is entitled in your handwriting at the top, "Declaration of Facts."

Is that correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes. That's my own personal copy, so that's my handwriting.

THE COURT: And then -- while you've handwritten on all the stuff you've filed in here as well.

Right?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Possibly. But we're referring to the actual judgment. The actual judgment doesn't have my handwriting on it.

THE COURT: All right. It -- also, the actual form is "UCC Financing Statement Amendment."

Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: On that particular document, yes, it's an amendment to the perpetuity.

THE COURT: Okay. And there is nothing in here -- there are copies of that, but there is nothing that says "Judgment."

Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. Inside of there, you will see the word "judgment," however, because it goes unrebutted, it stands -- the declaration unrebutted stands as law. So --

THE COURT: I understand your legal theory.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It is not a theory.

It's a law and maxim of law.

THE COURT: Okay.

We'll go ahead and get to that.

If you'll hand this back, the Court will make note that  there is no judgment in the stack of papers that she gave me.

Now, on Page 2 of your filings, your praecipe, you do list a group of maxims of law.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Maxims of law?

THE COURT: Yes. Right?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I was just -- I thought you said "maximums."

THE COURT: Maxims of law.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes.

THE COURT: And what is your -- where is the legal support for those maxims?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Such as --

THE COURT: Like where do you get them?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- being born from a fraud?

THE COURT: Where did you get them from?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's universal.

THE COURT: You just made them up?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No.

THE COURT: Where did you get them?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: They're universally accepted. Like, nothing can be born from a fraud.
That's something we've used when I was working as a prosecutor for the government, nothing could be born from a fraud.

THE COURT: Well, you said, "A declaration unrebutted stands as law."

Where did you get that?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: A declaration unrebutted, those are in almost every court rule book.

THE COURT: I couldn't find it anywhere.

Where would you find it?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm not sure about Tennessee. I haven't gone --

THE COURT: Where would you find it anywhere? In
Washington?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That declaration stands unrebutted?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That would be in the court rules typically of any state.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you know where?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I do not know where in the -- Tennessee.

However, the rules, that's part of the thing is with the declaration of facts, the actual judgment that was perfected back in 2012, it was never rebutted.

There was foreclosure and a termination, which also means all the policy statutes and codes belonging to that particular entity also is unenforceable.

They do not exist.

THE COURT: We're not talking about that. We're just talking about maxims of law.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Maxim of law is that which is universally accepted and known to be true.
I don't know. Do you believe that something born of a fraud exists?

THE COURT: I'm just asking where you got these.

You have submitted them, and I ask you --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: They are -- they are universal maxims that I have learned and been trained with in law school, as well as in my time as an attorney working for the government, as well as privately working as an attorney, and then also as a lawyer after I canceled my bar license and no
longer was a licensed attorney or an attorney.

THE COURT: Okay.

So what I'm hearing is, even though it's universal, it's everywhere, you know all about it, there's no place I could go and find these?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm sure that we could spend some time and look for them, if you would like.

If you want a specific reference, although I assumed everyone here,  sitting as an attorney or in this seat, is -- they're presumed to know the law, so as far as the universal maxims, such as nothing can
be born from a fraud.

THE COURT: All right. Now, if I look over at Page 4, and I -- right after those maxims in your praecipe, it's your contention, first, that, among others, neither  Chief Judge Varlan nor I legally exist.

Is that correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Actually, I was waiting for proof from you, as well as everyone that was listed inside of the praecipe, and there were two praecipes, so I'm referring to the
one on the 29th.

THE COURT: Yes. That's the one I have in front of me.

It's on Page 4.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

So we're not on the one from yesterday?

THE COURT: No.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

THE COURT: So is that correct, you claim that we do not legally exist?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: We actually -- from what I understand and from the record, there was a declaration that -- of lack of jurisdiction of yourself of Guyton -- Mr. Guyton, who was at the time in front of me, as well as Cynthia Davidson and Anne-Marie Svolto.

THE COURT: Just --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I have not received anything --

THE COURT: I did not ask --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- from you guys.

THE COURT: -- about Ms. Davidson. I did not ask about Ms. Svolto.

I did not ask about Judge Guyton, did I?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

To answer your question very specifically and particularly --

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- I have not received any documented evidence, sworn, validated, and verified by you that you exist, that you actually -- excuse me, you exist as far as being a judge that supposedly works for Eastern Tennessee  -- Eastern District of Tennessee, for the United States.
I haven't received any of that documentation from you.

The record is void of it.

THE COURT: And do you think I have to give that to you?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes, you do.

THE COURT: And where is the legal authority?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: When I assert a declaration of lack of jurisdiction and existence as a legal entity to come in and have authority over me.

THE COURT: So if you were to claim I was a zebra, I would have to issue proof that I wasn't?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, that's just a -- I'm not even sure whether the Court is going to be humorous, because you're obviously not a zebra. I see that you are a human being
sitting there.

I'm saying, what is your authority?

What is your authorization?

Because you have to be authorized.

THE COURT: Were you here at my investiture?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No, but when was your investiture?

THE COURT: If you had been --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: When was your investiture?

THE COURT: Back 16 years ago.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

So whatever your investiture was, it was inside of the United States
corporation.

It was terminated.

It was foreclosed upon.

THE COURT: Okay. So --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: So that's why I'm asking for everyone's authority, including yours and Judge -- you know, Judge Varlan or the allegedness of that. I don't know.

I need to see your authority, your identification, your authorization to actually do all this. I
do not have that.

THE COURT: I'm just trying to be sure I'm reading this right is all.

Did you claim we do not legally exist as judges?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I do not have any sworn documented, verification, or validation that you legally  exist, and have the authority to hold this court or to -- that this court even exists, because I've actually delivered proof to  all of you, sworn, documented, verified, validated proof that  they
do not exist.

You as a human being, yes, you do.

THE COURT: What I'm looking for is yeses and noes, and then if you want to explain the yes or no, but you go straight off into some bizarre explanation, and I never get an
answer.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, I said I do not have any documentation.

THE COURT: I didn't ask you if you have any documentation.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I don't have any documentation, so
therefore, no, you don't.

THE COURT: Okay.

Your position is we don't legally exist, because you have no documentation.

And what documentation would it take to convince you that I legally
exist?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: A sworn -- with your signature and seal, validation, and verification by you, sworn  declaration that the United States, first off, exists, that it's  lawful, that it's legal, that you actually have the authority, and then I would need to see the authorization from the United States.

THE COURT: Then what would you do with all that?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: If everyone had it, we would have it.

We don't.

So 2012, 2013, all of this --

THE COURT: So, really, all that is --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It would actually trump, wouldn't it?

It would trump that declaration of facts and judgment that actually stands as a judgment as a matter of law under the Uniform Commercial Code.

THE COURT: Well, first off, we can dispense with that.

Filing a UCC financing statement does not translate into a judgment. Number one, that is contrary to the law.

Number two, a UCC financing statement doesn't even have that potential.

And, number three, you have absolutely no legal basis for claiming it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Actually, I accept your statements as proof of either, number one, your ignorance or --

THE COURT: That's fine.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- a collusion at this point.

THE COURT: Well, we'll get into that in just a second.

If I understand, you also claim that we do not have authority or jurisdiction of this criminal action. Is that correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I have no documentation that there's authority or jurisdiction over this action.

So therefore, no, I do not have proof of that.

THE COURT: I understand you don't have proof of that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: If there is no proof of that, then my position is actually validated and verified here in this courtroom right now.

THE COURT: You claim that we do not have authority or jurisdiction of this action, true or false?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: True.

I've declared that since D.C. And I still have not been provided.

If you had it, you'd show it.

THE COURT: And you claim that you do not have -- we do not have authority or jurisdiction over you or Mr. Beane?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I have declared that you don't have jurisdiction over me. According to the record, Mr. Beane has declared you don't have jurisdiction over him.

And the burden of proof shifts to you and to Anne Svolto -- Anne-Marie Svolto and Cynthia Davidson.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You have not met your burden.

THE COURT: Is it your position that that is true only as to you and Mr. Beane, or is that true as to everyone?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That particular judgment, which I gave you, which according -- under the Uniform Commercial  Code and common law --

THE COURT: No. My question --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It is absolutely a perfected judgment, so that means everyone in this room is no longer a citizen of a private corporation, nor are they an employee of a private corporation --

THE COURT: Okay.

Does --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- operating under the guise of
government.

THE COURT: Does that mean that your position is that not only do Judge Varlan and I not have any authority or jurisdictions over you and Mr. Beane, but we don't have authority over anyone?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You know, can I just ask for a clarification here? Because it feels like I'm giving legal advice at this point.

THE COURT: I'm not asking for legal advice.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I've made a declaration that nobody has authority or jurisdiction over me.

At that point --

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- the burden shifts to those that declare or that assert that they do.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I haven't received that. That's what I'm saying.

THE COURT: Well, I'm asking you if your argument is limited to you --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I have no argument.

I made a declaration.

There's a difference.

THE COURT: -- if -- your position is true only as to you, or is it true as to everyone in the courtroom and outside the courtroom?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: My declaration, not position -- I corrected it to declaration -- is everybody on this planet has been taken out of the employment and the citizenship or the ownership of private corporations operating under the guise  of government.

THE COURT: Okay.

So if I understand that right, then anyone could commit a federal crime and we would not be
able to prosecute them. Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Again, these are -- all goes to legal advice, which we -- you and I personally agreed I would not go into.

THE COURT: I'm not asking you for your legal advice. I'm asking you, is that part of your position, because I'm trying to figure out how it works.

So if it works as to you, and if it works as to everyone --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This court is a bank.

It's just a bank teller.

Okay?

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This court operates as a banking function.

THE COURT: That's my -- that's my point. If this court is just a bank teller, if this court has no jurisdiction, if this court doesn't exist, if this court has been  foreclosed on, if all those things are true, then there is no authority in this court to sit in judgment of anybody who commits any
criminal offense.

Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Every criminal offense that used to be in the United States Code, which used -- I should say is in the United States Code, which used to be enforceable --

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- they are basically regulations on commerce.

Okay?

THE COURT: On what?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: My hope -- on commerce.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That's what Congress has the unlimited power to do is regulate commerce.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: My entire last 20 years has been spent to making sure that people such as yourself,  Anne-Marie Svolto, and Cynthia Davidson could actually do what we  believed we were doing.

When I was a prosecutor, I went in there because I believed I was protecting the community. I was protecting that until I ended up at the highest levels of banking trade and finance before --

THE REPORTER: Can you please slow down?

THE COURT: I'm not interested -- yeah, let's just cut her off.

I'm not interested in your biography.

I'm simply asking how this -- I'm trying to see how this works.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yeah.

Not a problem.

THE COURT: Okay.

So --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It used to be one way, and now I'm putting all my intent that it is another way.

THE COURT: In your world, in your idea of how this works, because you think there is no U.S., and I think there is, so in your -- in your declaration and your position, in your theory and your whatever you want to call it, if someone were to rob a bank, okay, could they be prosecuted in court by a prosecutor like these young ladies or by a court like  myself or Judge Varlan?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: If there is authority to do so, then, of course.

THE COURT: Is there authority? I thought you said there was no such authority.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You gave me a hypothetical.

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I gave you another hypothetical answer -- or excuse me, the appropriate hypothetical answer was, if there is authority and jurisdiction.

THE COURT: But in your position, there is no such in this court.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This state of current events --

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- is that essentially all I did was I closed and terminated the fraud.

This court used to be operating in a fraud.

Okay.

It still is until we go in and actually clean things up.

It's not -- I get what everyone's intent and hearts are set to, and I agree with you.

That was the why things could be taken down.

The only thing I took down was the corporate fraud that was occurring called the United States.

It was a corporate fraud. That's it.

THE COURT: In the name of trying not to commit more fraud, I take it your position then is, if someone robs a bank today and they come in here, I should just tell them I have no authority over them, I don't exist, and they should just go home?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm not going to give you any legal advice of how you should conduct your affairs today.

THE COURT: I mean, that would be the ultimate result of what you're proposing.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: At this point, because of where you sit and where I get -- I get where you believe you sit, and I get where everyone actually has that. Right now, this court is not operating lawfully. You are not operating lawfully if you don't have proof of your authority and jurisdiction.

I'm not consenting to you having authority and jurisdiction over me. I'm not an employee of a defunct terminated corporation. I'm not a citizen of a defunct corporation.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: But I am here, you are here, and we're all talking underneath -- in our own full responsibility. This is what the restructure is about. This is what the statement is for, is all these funds go to the restructure.

THE COURT: I was hoping that at some point in our discussion, you could see the fallacy in your argument or at least your supporters could.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, I hope that you see the fallacy in your hypothetical.

THE COURT: But that is the long and short of your proposition, that people could just go out today and commit any kind of crimes, and there would be no way to prosecute them or to bring them to justice, because by virtue of your foreclosure in your own argument, by virtue of that, we have -- no longer have any authority, we don't exist legally, and we could do nothing with them.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Legally no. Nobody --

THE COURT: Okay.

So that's my point.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Nobody legally exists --

THE COURT: That's my point.

We would have anarchy.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- in that commercial structure anymore, no.

THE COURT: The essence for this, if I understand it is, that you contend that the United States was formerly declared a corporation.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Formerly?

It's Anne-Marie Svolto and Cynthia Davidson said that, and the alleged court clerk's record it says the U.S.A. is the plaintiff. I'm just asking for proof of the existence of the plaintiff.

THE COURT: I didn't ask about that. I'll just read your own writing.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's not a corporation anymore.

It is -- it was cited in the United States Code.

I gave you that.

THE COURT: You said the United States was formerly declared a corporation at 18 U.S. Code Section 3002(15).

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That was only the most recent citing of --

THE COURT: That's the only thing you wrote.

Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: You understand, don't you, that that cite is just a definitional cite under the Federal Debt  Collection Procedure Act, don't you?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I am very aware of the United States being a corporation after working at the highest  levels of bank trade and finance, and that it is actually a corporation that had been operating in fraud.

THE COURT: No, ma'am. It is not. And your only reference to it does not even say that, does it?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I would be happy, because this is a bankrupt -- this was a bankrupt corporation.

I actually went in and cleaned up the bankruptcy and it was satisfied. So as far as -- this is all banking.

THE COURT: You went in and cleaned --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This is all law.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You know, I am completely aware that yourself and others are not aware of the actual current law.

I get that.

THE COURT: Well, in your mind, I appreciate that you feel that way. What I'm asking you is, the legal cite that you filed doesn't support what you claim.

Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: How does it not support?

It was a corporation operating under the guise of government and it was a bankrupt corporation.

THE COURT: It doesn't say that at 18 U.S. Code Section 3002(15), does it?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That was for -- that's for the Fair Debt and Practices Act. Correct?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That is part of the fraud that was committed under the corporation operating under the guise of the government.

All we did was correct it.

At this point, we do move forward with a true government at this point.

This government that we all believe in, I believe in it too.

I do not believe in the --

THE COURT: Does it have judges?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- in a fraudulent --

THE COURT: Does your government have judges?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: My government doesn't -- I -- right now, I do not have -- subscribe to any corporate government, no.

THE COURT: All right. So just --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: However, as far as we're not going to be creating criminals, like we have been, to be able to feed into the prison systems, which are all money based.

There are tons of undercover agents that I even met with while I was in there who have been gathering evidence for over the last five years, as well as marshals that were  working as marshals while I was there.

This is all stuff that's going to be coming out.

I completely respect you, Anne-Marie Svolto, and Cynthia Davidson, Mr. Parker Still, Randy Beane, Steve,  and Francis, everyone that's in this courtroom, I respect you  all.

I'm here because I spent the last 20 years working with those inside the industries to clean this up.
I'm saying, yes, we can move forward. Yes, we can have court.

We can have different systems, but we are not answering to a banking entity, into the banking families.

That's what I'm saying. It's slavery via monetary instruments. And that's the fraud that was stopped.

THE COURT: And I guess the long and short of it is simply just because you say it's so doesn't make it so.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, and --

THE COURT: And that's true with everybody.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Everyone, yes.

THE COURT: That's true with everybody.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: However --

THE COURT: In other words, if I were to issue a declaration saying that, you know, you owed me some money, and you didn't, quote, rebut it within the time I said it, doesn't mean you owe it to me.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, if you gave me a notice that I owed it to you, I would actually absolutely rebut it, because if I don't owe it to you, I don't owe it to you.

THE COURT: But if you didn't, you still wouldn't owe it to me --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, if you gave me notice of it --

THE COURT: So if I just made it up out of whole cloth, and I just said, "You owe me a million dollars," and for some reason you didn't rebut it, suddenly you owe me a million dollars, even though --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That would never happen.

THE COURT: -- there was no basis for the debt?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That would never happen.

I would rebut it.

THE COURT: But if you didn't?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I wouldn't -- I would. I would

THE COURT: Suppose you just blew it off?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I wouldn't.

I would rebut it.

THE COURT: Or if anybody did. If I wrote it to Ms. Svolto and she blew it off?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm not responsible for Ms. Svolto.

She has to be responsible for her own things.

THE COURT: What I'm trying to show you is the fallacy of that argument.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The fallacy of the argument is actually not telling anyone what their actual positions  are legally.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: As far as the legal status, their legal identity, and everything else.

THE COURT: Well, I'm trying to do --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: She's responsible for her own
debt.

But if you sent it to me, I'm absolutely canceling it, because it's not true.

THE COURT: Let's see.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: May I ask for a clarification, please?

THE COURT: I have no idea.

I'm just trying to do my job. And my job --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That's what I'm asking.

THE COURT: -- which may not exist in your mind anyway, but for everybody else in the world, my job is to rule on motions that are filed in front of me. And the way I -- and I understand every judge does that, is to read the motion to see what the allegations are, to see what the supporting law is, and to see what the other side says in response to it, and then make a decision. That's whatwe do.

We do it day in and day out. Every judge in thiscountry has been doing it for hundreds of years. And all I'm trying to do is go through that same process with you by asking you what is the basis for these
various arguments. I've highlighted them.

I've read everything you filed.

And I can't get you to stay with me on that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, I have a clarification for you --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- which possibly might help here.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: There is a contrite ignorance, from the moment that we go to law school, as far as what the law is, a true bill, for instance, can only be issued by the
original issuer.

So, for instance, there is an ignorance, not just within this court, but within the whole entire legal  industry, everywhere that someone else can actually charge me or do a true bill against me.

THE COURT: So no one --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Or anybody.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Let me see if I understand that, because I've never heard that law.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's not a law. It's a matter of fact as far as what paperwork goes from this courtroom  through the clerk's office.

THE COURT: No, no, no.

You said no one can issue a true bill against you except who, yourself?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's like someone trying to write a check for me, signing my name, only they don't sign my name, they try to get my signature in another way. That's what the fingerprinting and the photo IDing is in the courthouse.

We actually at the highest level of banking trade and finance, we actually have to have all that documentation.

If you send us a judgment, a conviction without having the thumbprinting and the -- or the fingerprinting and the photo ID along with the indictment, there is no charge. I'm talking
from a banking level.

No matter what happens here today, and the only thing I'm going to be able to do is to be able to accept all of your statements as proof of ignorance.

And I will state that with all due respect, it is contrived, it is designed to have that
ignorance be present.

THE COURT: Okay.

So --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: However, at the banking level, this is what this is about.

Right now, every minute that we discussed, because, mind you, with a praecipe, there is no -- it is not subject to discussion or merit.

It is just entered, and then later on, if they come back and they have proof -- because right now, the record is void, completely void of any sworn documentation, validation, and verification that the
United States, the alleged plaintiff, exists.

There is proof that it doesn't exist, but there is no proof that it does exist.

So unless you guys come forward with your proof of authority, authorization, and jurisdiction, dated from March 2013 onward, there is none.

THE COURT: Do you accept the United States Constitution?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The constitution used to exist. It was actually canceled within the foreclosure.

And that -- a constitution is actually a contract.

And, no, I've never been a signatory to that contract.

However, when I was a licensed, barred attorney, before I was made aware of it, yes, I did swear to uphold the constitution. However, it's a contract. I'm not a signatory to it. Are you?

THE COURT: So if I -- I'm trying to figure out, you keep saying you haven't given me any authorization. You haven't given me any documentation.

If my support for my position was the United States Constitution and duly ratified
laws of the United States Congress, would that be sufficient?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. It would have to come from the Attorney General, who is Jeff Sessions at the moment.

Okay.

He would have to validate and verify that the United States Constitution is lawful.

THE COURT: And would you accept that if he did? Would you accept then that the United States Constitution is law?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: If I had sworn verification and validation.

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: With his signature and seal.

THE COURT: What's a seal?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: His seal, it would be his signature and then the biometric seal.

THE COURT: What's a biometric seal?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: For every single -- the fingerprints at some point. No, I don't think I ever did
anything for a bar.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You didn't do any fingerprinting whatsoever for background checks or anything like that in  order to take the bench?

THE COURT: I don't -- oh, to take the bench was different, yeah.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

So that is part of the United States corporation when it legally existed and as it
functioned.

Everyone is required to give their thumbprints.

I know for the FBI when I became a prosecutor for the United States --

THE COURT: That's not my point.

You said Jeff Sessions would have to send something with his fingerprint  on it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yeah.

I don't have Jeff Sessions' -- his biometric seal.

Either that or he could be personally here and swear --

THE COURT: Do you understand there is nothing, other than your claim, that says anybody has to file anything  with their fingerprint on it?

You're the only person who claims that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Actually, that's what --

THE COURT: And I realize we're all -- I understand that we're all contrived ignorant, but there is nothing that says that's the law, that that's required, or that any of that has to be done, except you.

You just write it repeatedly, and then in your mind it becomes the law.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. Actually, it is inside of every single position that you take.

When you do a background check, you have to provide your fingerprints.

THE COURT: I didn't ask that.

You said for him to file something that has his fingerprint, his biometric seal would have to be on it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, then he can give me the one that he supposedly gave to the United States corporation when he took his position.

But that is a seal.

And everyone here has required -- I don't know how many times I was required, which I gave without prejudice and under duress, my fingerprints, was to check me in to every single hotel that the U.S. Marshals put me through on that 30-day tour.

So I'm not asking for anything that isn't actually asked for.

In fact, now, even in banking, you have to go in.

It's all a matter of banking.

It's not a matter of law.

It never has been.

It's all a matter of banking.

But you do actually fulfill those requirements.

You just stated you did when you took the bench.

THE COURT: Are you aware that the district courts, like this one, have original jurisdiction over all  criminal offenses against the laws of the United States by statute?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: When was that statute made and entered?

THE COURT: I don't know. 18 U.S. Code Section 3231, I'm sure you're aware of that, having gone to law school.

Right?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: When was that actually entered?

My point is, unless it's dated after March 13th -- excuse me, March 18th, 2013, along with a newly issued constitution  and everything, I know they've already tried to reincorporate.

All of our people at BIS, they've tried to reincorporate the corporation, but they could not.

THE COURT: So your position is that, even though that's been the law of the land since the founding of the country, if it hasn't been redone since you filed your financing statement, it's no good, it's not good law, the district courts do not have original jurisdiction over all the criminal offenses against the United States?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, the court never had original jurisdiction -- or the United States is only a ten square mile, if you've been to D.C.

And then as far as branching it out, that's where the fraud has occurred under the old statutes.

I'm saying that at this point, the federal corporation does not exist.

I have not received any sworn documentation rebutting any of that to prove that it does exist.

And, you know, we're all having a conversation here, but none of it actually counts, only because we still have not received the authority, sworn declaration, sworn  documentation, verified and validated by you or Anne-Marie Svolto or Cynthia Davidson stating your authority and jurisdiction, so  therefore, we're just having a conversation here.
I'm more than willing to accept this.

And if you accept documentation that you would like me to review and decide whether to accept or reject --

THE COURT: But it has been --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: But I don't have any.

THE COURT: It has been provided to you. That's the point.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: When was it provided, because I have not received any?

I don't know.

Has elbow counsel for Randy Beane received any?

Because maybe I'm just missing it.

THE COURT: Yeah, you did. It's cited in their brief, and it's in the statute.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Which none of those statutes, none of those codes actually exist. They were part of the old corporation offered under the guise of the government.

THE COURT: That's what I'm saying. It was provided to you. Here it is.

Here's the law that everybody in this United States operates under. And it tells you that the
district courts of the United States shall have a original jurisdiction, and you say that's just not right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. Because these belong to the federal corporation, which was closed. And I do not have any documentation that the federal corporation -- that there is another federal corporation, because the other one was terminated and foreclosed.

So unless you show me where the United States actually exists with the legal documentation of a legal  entity, these codes mean nothing.

In fact, they're only just proof of collusion at this point.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: We have proof of collusion.

And at the same time for me, while -- thank you, very much.

It may be proof of collusion, I believe it's a matter of -- and I say this with all due respect, you guys, because I was in the same spot till I worked with DOJ -- with those in DOJ, and the FBI,
U.S. Marshals, World Bank, Federal Reserve, and everybody  else, this is a banking structure. It's a corporate structure for a reason.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Or it was.

That was what was terminated and closed.

I am -- have you -- are you in receipt of the Declaration of Statement of Assessments?

That's Document 55.

THE COURT: Is that the one where you claim some people in this court system, maybe me included, owe you $46 quintillion?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Oh, I see where the -- no, this is 44

not you directly.

THE COURT: Oh, good.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Or to anyone here.

THE COURT: Good.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This is the amount that is running, and actually since 901, it's been doubled and compounded.

THE COURT: So, like, we're up to 92 quintillion?

I probably don't have that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, this has to do with the Federal Reserve and Bank for International --

THE COURT: They probably don't have that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: They don't.

They're trying to create it like mad.

That's what September 15th was about.

THE COURT: Well, let's move on a second.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: As long as you are noticed that this is existing, you've received it.

Has Anne-Marie --

THE COURT: I'd just tell you to be careful -- I'd just tell you to be careful about some of your filings, and Mr. Lloyd can advise you of that, that, you know, there's other statutes that obviously you will not agree exist, but, unfortunately, the rest of the country and this court and the prosecution -- prosecutors and the marshals and ultimately the Bureau of Prisons will deem exist, that make it a crime to file certain things against judges --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Oh --

THE COURT: -- false filings. So just -- all I'm saying is just be careful.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, I just want to make a clarification for everyone's peace of mind but also for the record.

These are not liens against anybody in this courthouse, in this room at all, or in your personal positions at all.

These are actually going towards the entities that are committing the fraud that have not gone into actually explaining any of this to you, but literally that you are --

THE COURT: All right. So if I understand -- I'm trying to put all this together and figure it out.
One of the problems I have is, you're claiming that none of these laws really exist, authority doesn't exist  in either the courts or the statutes, but the whole basis for your claim is based on the legal authority of the UCC?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: My legal authority is I'm here, I'm existing.

I'm proving and have proved and giving you documentation that I exist.

THE COURT: The claim that you foreclosed on the United States.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, that's aside from this moment.

Right now I gave you actual documentation. The record is void of any kind of documentation provided by any of you stating your identification, your authority, your  authorization to actually present to the United States.

THE COURT: We've heard that.

We've heard that repeatedly.

You don't have to say it again.

It's in the record. Okay? I'll give it to you.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, I do have to say it. Can I have it? Do you have it for me?

THE COURT: It's -- my -- it's my question that's on the table.

Is the genesis of your basis that the UCC exists?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No, the UCC was closed.

THE COURT: UCC was closed.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It was terminated on March 18th, 2013 when the DOJ, Secretary of State, U.S. Treasury, and other international equivalents --

THE COURT: So you're --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- could not rebut. Everything was accepted, duly accepted, and that is the other filings that were included in the declaration of facts.

It was all terminated, including the United States Code, including  the United States of America as a corporation operating under the guise of government.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That's the one that was closed, just so you know.

THE COURT: So the UCC filing that you made, do I understand that you think that that foreclosed on things  like the Federal Reserve bank and the United States. Is that right?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I know it removed them as custodians. They were left as facilitators so that everything could be repurposed.

However, we had a number of people going in and doing their own agendas at that point and created a vacuum, so --

THE COURT: But you've said they were foreclosed on.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: They were all duly, legally, and lawfully foreclosed upon using the same exact procedures  that are used all over the United States.

THE COURT: Okay.

And so who owns the Federal Reserve bank now?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The Federal Reserve bank has been inside of BIS the entire time.

THE COURT: Inside what?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The bank, Federal Reserve Bank?

THE COURT: Yeah.

Did you say DIS?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's called Bank for International Settlements.

THE COURT: BIS.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yeah.

BIS.

THE COURT: And where is the Bank for International Settlements?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Where is the Bank for International Settlements? Who is that?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Bank for International Settlements is the central bank of all the central banks, or it was.

THE COURT: Where is that?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That's in Switzerland.

THE COURT: So Switzerland owns --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No.

THE COURT: Okay.

Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank and the FDIC and all the other banks?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, the FDIC is closed.

It's only open -- all these corporations only exist as a matter of bookkeeping only.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Ledgering.

THE COURT: So who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The Federal Reserve Bank?

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Everyone on the planet owns it equally.

THE COURT: Okay. And so --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Pursuant to those filings.

THE COURT: And I understand that your filings said that each person was entitled to $6 billion as a result of that filing. Is that right?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No, it's not.

THE COURT: It's not?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No, it's stated incorrectly.

THE COURT: Oh.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Everyone -- everyone's state of body, which would be their actual -- their bodies, and those are under the ownership and care of each individual.

As far as the 5 billion -- according to the commercial bill and the true bill, there is 5 billion in pre --

THE REPORTER: I'm sorry?

Pre-19?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Sorry.

Pre-1933 gold and silver, which is the lawful money or was the lawful money of the United
States, and that's what was duly secured, registered, and noticed.

THE COURT: So what I'm --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: So it's actually 10 billion for every prejudice since March 13th, 2013 -- excuse me, March 18th, 2013, every prejudice done towards you,  towards
anyone, and that includes having you sit on a bench, serving a private interest other than doing the job that you truly have believed that you've been doing this entire time,  it's 10 billion ledgered each time, which is why the economies are in the state they are. It's actually ledgered through BIS.

THE COURT: Okay.

So every -- every one of us in this courtroom is entitled to $10 billion?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm not sure what your accounts are at this time.

Like I gave you --

THE COURT: At least.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I gave you an example of what just this case -- these alleged cases alone --

THE COURT: I'm looking at your filing.

I'm looking at your filing back in 2012.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yeah.

That was notice and security for every single being on this planet --

THE COURT: Right. Have you --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- that when there's a prejudice --

THE COURT: Have you gone and gotten yours, your 5 billion?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Everything is ledgered over to BIS.

So, yes -- and I was actually given the -- I was, until I was threatened and said that I could only use mine and a small group of my friends, but they didn't want the word out to anybody else, because too many people were --

THE COURT: So you've gotten yours, but nobody else
can get --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. I rejected everything.

THE COURT: We don't --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I rejected everything.

If everyone is to have access to their accounts, you have accounts --

THE COURT: That was magnanimous of you to give up your 5 billion because everybody else couldn't get it, huh?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I have much more. These are ledgered accounts. And I know that you are making fun of things right now, but I'm being very, very serious right now. And I spent
20 years of my life to make sure the fraud and slavery stopped.

THE COURT: I was interested to see if there was anything to your argument.

And that's why I asked you the 40 questions before this --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I don't have argument --

THE COURT: -- because once you --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- I have declaration.

THE COURT: Once you have no concept of the law in my mind, then all this other stuff has no moment and no merit.

I wanted to see if you would agree with the basic principles of law and the statute and the constitution.

And if you did, then I would have to say, "Wow, maybe I ought to look at this." But once I heard you say that -- you know, all the things you said, then it pretty well confirmed to me, and here's why.

Let me --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm sorry. I didn't understand that last piece. Could you please repeat it?

THE COURT: No. Did you -- let me ask you this.

Maybe this will help you.

Did you study the UCC in law school?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes, I did.

THE COURT: And you are aware, then, that the UCC is not a law?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The UCC, as I stated earlier, the United States Commercial Code.

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Is just a regulation of uniform registration system, a notification system.

That's what it is.

THE COURT: My point is, it doesn't exist.

You understand that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: United States Commercial Code does not exist?

THE COURT: It's not called the United States Commercial Code, is it?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The UCC that you're referring to, the notification system --

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- or the actual regulations?

Which one are you speaking of?

THE COURT: I'm talking about the UCC that you have referenced throughout every document that you have filed.

You are aware that that is not a law.

That is a group of people who got together and put together a proposed set of uniform laws that the various states of the United States might choose to adopt so that we might have some uniformity between the states.

And each state, like Tennessee, adopts its own version of the UCC, and changes whatever terms it wants to, so that each state has its own version of the UCC, but there is no law, per se, called the UCC.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm aware of that.

THE COURT: Okay.

So.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: UCC is a notification system or was a notification system.

THE COURT: No. Each state has a version of the UCC with a notification system. Correct?
There is no UCC notification system, is there?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Then what are the actual filings that they are doing?

That is them filing whatever property or claims that they believe that they have or positions that  they
have.

It is a -- it was a notification system, and each state -- I agree with you, each state had its own versions that they've adopted and that they used.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That is absolutely correct as to --

THE COURT: So what you just referenced, the UCC and a number, like UCC 301, there is no such thing.

There's a proposal for a Section 301, but there's no law.

There's no UCC 301, is there?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: There's going to be a lot of bankers, and even your court clerk is going to be very upset to hear that. Because everything that you guys do is entered into
the -- or was entered into the UCC --

THE COURT: Nothing I do -- no, ma'am. Nothing I do is entered into the UCC. Nothing.

Because it doesn't exist.

If you would cite me --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I agree with you that it --

THE COURT: -- to a statute where it exists, I will look it up, and we will show everybody.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Is that a United States Code?

THE COURT: Yeah.

Well this has the code at the back, yeah.

Where is it?

It's not in there.

It was put together by a group of private groups, like the American Law Institute.

You know that.

You learned that in law school.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I did.

I've had to work with --

THE COURT: You just made this stuff up. There is no 18 UCC 301.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. I didn't make it up.

THE COURT: There's no UCC 103, is there?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I did not make anything up. These are actually common law -- common law principles.

THE COURT: So here we have --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The UCC is utilized by every single system and function from the U.S. corporation when it was in a function of a corporation. Now there is no corporation. What I'm saying is, everything goes forward exactly as we all designed.

THE COURT: So here we have the Tennessee version.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Of what? I'm sorry, I can't see that far.

THE COURT: Of the commercial transactions. And there's a 47-3-301, because that's how Tennessee chose to codify --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Everyone -- which is why in the filings what we've -- I handed forward, the actual declaration of facts, which came up to judgment due to nonrebuttal, it actually states that all national and international
equivalents --

THE COURT: Your whole basis --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: All state and international equivalent. So it's whatever equivalent Tennessee would have to that particular recording, they've all been honored  there.

THE COURT: My point is, you understand they're all different.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That's why the filings are written the way they are, United States federal government, United States state of, and any and all international and universal equivalents, it's the same thing.

THE COURT: And the whole basis, like I'm looking at your financing statement --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: So your Tennessee Code you just referenced there had been included because of the actual language.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: And, again, I -- at this point, as far as I still have not received, while we've been sitting here for however long, these amounts that are being ledgered, everyone's had notice of them.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: All of that.

What I'm asking from you is, do you have for me, because I'd be more than willing to
accept it at this point, so I'm going to ask for the final time, because it's already been asked in writing quite a few times, do you, C. Clifford Shirley, and Anne-Marie Svolto, and Cynthia Davidson, and Parker Still, because he was included in that as well, as well as the alleged court clerk and her
deputies, do you have for me today, any sworn documentation validating and verifying your authority, your  identification, your authorization from the actual United States --

THE COURT: Number one --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- for me to go forward and prove in validation, verification that the laws that you are claiming, that myself and Mr. Beane have violated are actually lawful?

Do you have that for me from Jeff Sessions?

Sessions.

THE COURT: I do not have that for you from Jeff

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Thank you.

THE COURT: Number one. Number two, you are not entitled to that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Under what basis?

THE COURT: Number three, even if I produced it, you wouldn't accept it. You've just said it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I did not.

THE COURT: Yes, you did.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I said that I --

THE COURT: When I said --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I started out that way, I'm more than willing to accept anything that you have for me to review --

THE COURT: All right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- for acceptance and rejection. So you're telling me you don't have it --

THE REPORTER: Excuse me, excuse me.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes?

THE REPORTER: For acceptance of what?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Sorry.

For acceptance to review.

I would accept it to review for acceptance of rejection -- I don't know what's going to be handed to me.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: But I'm more than willing to receive, to accept whatever you're going to hand me for further review, for acceptance, eventual acceptance or rejection, depending on what you give me.

THE COURT: I have determined that based on what you've said, that my official and formal appointment from the United States government would not be acceptable to you because you've said it doesn't exist, I don't exist.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: If you want to hand it to me and --

THE COURT: No.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- with your signature and everything, I will definitely look at it.

THE COURT: No. I don't have to do that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I've asked you for that.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You have not provided it to me ever.

So I'm asking you for it.

And now are you refusing to give it to me?

THE COURT: I don't have it for you, nor do I have any signature from Jeff Sessions, nor his fingerprints, nor his biometric seal.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You asked me earlier, so now you're --

THE COURT: I do not have it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- you're making fun of me. I am just saying at this point, I do not have anything from you. I would be more than willing to look at -- I've never seen your appointments. I don't know what Tennessee's looks like.

If you want to hand that to me, that would be great.

Anne-Marie Svolto and Cynthia Davidson --

THE REPORTER: I need you to slow down.

I cannot type that fast.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I apologize.

THE COURT: When the record -- listen, when the record isn't accurate, in your mind, it will be because you were repeatedly advised to slow down and you wouldn't. I just want that on the record.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm not trying to intentionally upset you or to even speak fast, it is just a natural flow for me.

So I will consciously make sure that I maintain a pace that you can record.

So my apologies for any inconvenience.

THE COURT: Now, you filed copies of the indictment and copies of the government's response to those, and you marked all over those that they were basically void.

Is that right?

And that you --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Which document are you referring to?

Are you speaking to me or to Mr. Beane?

THE COURT: To you. Let's see. What are those documents, 48 and, I think, 49 and 53?

Do you recognize that?

You came and filed those the other day. If you'll look up here.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I've got 48, Document 48.

THE COURT: And you just said that the indictment is duly canceled and void. Is that right?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

I have Document 50, which was -- that was your --

THE COURT: I'm asking you about Document 48, the indictment in this case.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes. I have Document 48 and Document 58 in front of me.

THE COURT: Okay. And you just marked across them, the indictment, void and duly canceled.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes, I took a certified copy out from the clerks, because they have the original, so I took it out. They would not give me a redacted -- or excuse me, the
unredacted.

THE COURT: And is it your position that because you marked on that and put your fingerprint on it, that that makes the indictment void?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes. It is my understanding from charging -- my history of charging, charging documents, as well as in the highest levels of bank trade and finance where we
receive the actual documentations for monetization -- for the monetization, which this is the only way. Only the true original issuer can actually cancel something.

Same as if I write a check. I'm the only one that can actually cancel it. So when I was taken on the 25th --

THE COURT: Who's the original issuer of the indictment?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I am the original issuer of the indictment.

THE COURT: You issued this indictment against yourself?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This indictment through collusion at the highest levels that actually give you all the rules that you think you're following, or that you have followed, excuse me, that you think are lawful, that is actually how charging documents work, and they are monetized.

These are prepared for monetization.

So only with the fingerprints and the signature of the actual person that is being indicted, they are the original issuer of that indictment, so nobody goes to jail, nobody  goes and gets charged with a crime except by their own consent.

This is a voiding of any consent, whether presumed or actual.

It's what we call manufactured consent, because informed, knowing, willing, and intentional, that is  consent.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: However, the way this document and the way that they conducted themselves is not consent.

It's manufactured consent by presumption and threat of force,  threat of use of force.

So this is just canceling the indictment, which I'm the only one that issued it against myself.

So that's why I'm saying, if they want to bring forward the foreman, or if she wants to -- Cynthia Davidson wants to show me her authority, and authorization, and identification to be able to actually
issue a charge against me, that's what I'm asking for.

I still haven't received it.

As of this moment, this record is void of any of those documentations, which were required in order to rebut  the declaration that you don't have jurisdiction.

Nobody has jurisdiction or authority over me.

THE COURT: Okay.

You also filed a praecipe,

Document 54, just recently, which appears to be an order for dismissal, signed -- signed by you.

Is that correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I provided the blank one to everybody that's in this room or parties to this particular case.

And then behind that, I did sign one.

It would be Page 6 is the one I signed.

However, the -- the blank one -- so it's proposed -- I signed for my part, because I'm the only
one that can give authorization --

THE COURT: So if the style of the case is the alleged United States District Court, and the order for
dismissal with prejudice is signed by Heather Ann  Tucci-Jarraf, your proposal is that you have authority to issue orders in this court?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, if you actually read this,it's giving you leave to actually file this, to actually --

THE COURT: I understand filing it.

But I'm asking you, the authority to sign an order you believe rests in you?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Actually, the authority is stated in here. And this is -- still, I have not received anything as far as your jurisdiction. If there is no jurisdiction established and the burden is on you and it is on Anne-Marie Svolto and Cynthia Davidson, I do not -- there is no authority
whatsoever here, so therefore, it's -- the case is dismissed.

THE COURT: Did you have authority to sign that order?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I did.

THE COURT: And did --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: And it actually has to be signed by you in order to go forward.

THE COURT: Why?

It just says all I'm doing is granting you leave to file it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well --

THE COURT: Not to enter it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Exactly. Because I don't have anything from you, any sworn, verified, and validated  proof, documentation that you actually have authority over me. And I'm not consenting to you having authority over me.

I'm here so that we could resolve this in a very amicable manner.

THE COURT: All I'm trying to do is ask you questions.

If I could get an answer, it would be so much simpler.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Right now I'm the only one, myself, and I've seen the declarations or the documentation provided by Mr. Beane. Right now we're the only to in this courtroom.

He has authority only over himself, I only have authority over myself.

MR. BEANE: If I may ask a question?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BEANE: You referenced on August 29th, in reference back on August 29th, you specifically asked me if I thought I was God in the courtroom.

THE COURT: Right.

Because you said you were the source of all that is.

MR. BEANE: My question to you is, what gives you authority over me in this situation if you aren't God?

THE COURT: Is it your position that a judge does not have authority over you when you are alleged to have committed a crime?MR. BEANE: We've asked for that proof of who you
are.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BEANE: That's all we're asking for.

THE COURT: All right. And so if I showed you my appointment as a United States magistrate judge, would  that suffice for you?

MR. BEANE: It would be for my review and also Ms. Tucci-Jarraf's.

THE COURT: Well, would that suffice?

Because that's what I have.

MR. BEANE: Well, we would review it and then our answer would be --

THE COURT: Would that suffice for you?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, I would also need the --

THE COURT: If I saw your diploma --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Only -- it would only be one part of documentation that's required amongst the rest.

I would need proof --

THE COURT: What's the rest?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I would need proof that the United States actually exists and is lawful and validated.

The only one that can actually do that is --

THE COURT: I can't prove that, can I? Because they don't under your theory. As of March 13th, 2013, they don't exist.

So how could I prove that?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: If you -- are you claiming that you work for the United States?

THE COURT: Yes, I work for the United States courts.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

Wouldn't the United States courts, the United States itself, wouldn't that  documentation
be available to you?

I mean, it's the same as working for an employer.

Wouldn't they have their articles of incorporation?

Wouldn't they have their board resolution giving you  authority?

That's the stuff that I'm looking for.

THE COURT: I do. And I've told you it's in the United States Constitution which gives the -- Congress the authority to set up the courts. I gave you the statute in which Congress took that authority and set up the courts.

It specifically sets up this court, and it allows for judges, like myself, and so that's our authority.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

So then all you would need is a declaration from --

THE COURT: I don't need to give a declaration.

That's the law.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. What I'm saying is, is from Jeff Sessions, who is the one that actually set up these courts, and DOJ, everyone's underneath him.

Correct?

He would just have to validate and verify your appointment.

THE COURT: He doesn't set up this court.

He doesn't give me my authority.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

Whoever gives you your authority, that's who we would need.

And then we need identification of that and their authority.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It's just a -- it's called an evidentiary paper trail, which I know you're very  familiar with, as well as they are.

We're just saying what's your identification and your authority and your authorization?

Whoever gave you the authorization, the same things are required.

What is their identification?

What is their authority?

That's what is needed, a paper trail all the way back to the beginning, otherwise there is no authorization.

You would actually -- at that point, everything that has been stated here today without that is just proof of, one, collusion or incompetency.

And I don't believe you're an incompetent gentleman at
all.

I don't believe Anne-Marie Svolto and Cynthia Davidson are incompetent. I just believe that there has been a lot withheld as far as information and data, and it is all fraudulent.

That's what was shut down was just the fraud that was being committed by the banking parts of the systems, which I was completely involved with.

So as far as coming in here, this is out of courtesy, because there is none of that documentation that I  requested, and you stated you didn't have, and you've indicated that you will not give it to me, period.
Anne-Marie Svolto and Cynthia Davidson, as well as Parker Still, and everyone else that's been named in there  have remained silent.

THE COURT: Let me just be sure, because now, after today's hearing, you may be treading on questionable ground.

Do you recognize my authority to issue the release order that I released you on or not?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: For me, that was a private agreement between you and I.

THE COURT: No, ma'am.

That was a court order issued by me as the magistrate judge.

You either accept that authority or you do not.

And if you do not --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I accept it.

THE COURT: -- why would I allow you to remain out?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I accepted the agreement, and I still accept --

THE COURT: No, it's not an agreement.

It's an order from me with all the authority of the United States behind it.

Do you accept that or do you not? It's a yes or a no.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I accepted the order that you did without prejudice, which means all the stuff that isn't  there, isn't there.

But I am following this order that you and I entered into.

THE COURT: You understand you have to comply with the conditions in my court order?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Have you received any information otherwise that I have not followed everything that you and I signed off on?

THE COURT: I didn't ask you about whether you followed them.

I asked you did you agree that you must follow them?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I agreed to see you on that day, and I reconfirm it again this day, that I agree to it, I'm following it.

THE COURT: You understand you have to comply with my court order or you don't get to stay out.

Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I told you then and I told you now, I choose to follow that court order because we're going  to finish this all amicably, I said until this was disposed of in an amicable way and affirmitive way, that I would follow that agreement between you and I -- or that order that was signed off by both of us.

THE COURT: Do you agree that I have the authority to issue that order?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I agree that I gave you consent to issue that order, yes.

THE COURT: All right. Give you one last chance.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Without jurisdiction.

THE COURT: I'll give you one last chance. Do you agree that I have the authority to issue that order?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You have the authority to issue that order because I gave you that authority to issue that order.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It is an order I continue to follow until we have a disposition in this case, a final disposition.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have anything further to argue with regard to your non-motion?

Because you've said it's not a motion.

I mean, I'm not being facetious.

You specifically made a filing that said your praecipe is not a motion. Correct?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: A praecipe.

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: First off, I'm not arguing anything. I have declared.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I have made declarations.

They've not been rebutted.

THE COURT: All right. It's a declaration, not a motion.

You're not asking me to do anything.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. The praecipe is an order, but the basis for those orders being issued were the declaration of due cause.

THE COURT: Okay.

But it's not a motion in which you have moved the Court to do anything?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The addressees on that praecipe were ordered to do the praecipe one.

THE COURT: Okay.

They'll either do them or they won't.

I mean, when you order somebody to do something, they either do it or they don't.

So they'll either do it or they won't.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That's correct. They will do it or they don't. There was a notice that was put in there.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: But the basis for doing those or not was given to everyone, which is the --

THE COURT: I got you.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- declaration of due cause.

THE COURT: I got that.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That is the authority that was -- that it's based on.

THE COURT: I'm just trying to figure out if I have to do anything.

Because when people file a motion, I have to file an order responding to that motion. In this case, there is no motion --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, I would have filed a motion, but the Court, you yourself, Anne-Marie Svolto, and Cynthia Davidson have not provided proof of jurisdiction or authority,
so therefore, I couldn't file any motions.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: And I don't consent, I haven't consented to any authority, other than what you and I just clarified --

THE COURT: Well, that would be --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- in that particular order of
detention.

THE COURT: That would be an incorrect statement, because I ordered you to have a deadline for today for filing motions. You chose not to file a motion.

You could have filed a motion.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No.

THE COURT: No. Everybody does in these cases. The -- all the defendants file motions. Well, not all, but most defendants file motions, and then I rule on them.

You chose not to.

Instead, you chose to file a praecipe.

And you say you can't because you haven't gotten this information from us, but that's just the basis for your choice not to file one.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: So is it your position that if you don't have jurisdiction and authority over someone in your courtroom that you can order them to file motions?

THE COURT: No, ma'am.

I have jurisdiction and authority over you and this case.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: That's your assertion?

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

Then why haven't we had documentation?

Because I don't --

THE COURT: Because I don't send documentation in the hundreds of cases I have.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I get that.

THE COURT: I don't just send out --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: How many do you have --

THE COURT: -- say, everybody --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: How many do you have --

THE COURT: Can I finish? Because she's not going to

get down what you're saying --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I apologize.

THE COURT: -- when you talk over me, like you're doing now.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I apologize.

Go ahead.

THE COURT: Okay.

I don't do that. I don't have every defendant come in here and say, "Now, let me show you my
authority. Let me show you where I got appointed.

Let me show you this statute that says that -- let me take you back to the constitution where this court system was set up. Let me show you where the Congress then appointed the court."
I don't do that. Okay.

It's a waste of time, because the fact is, just because you say there is no United States, just because you say it's foreclosed, just because you say it's a corporation doesn't make it so.

It would be as if you were to say that my robe was red. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

And if you were to ask for me to send you proof that it was black, I wouldn't have to do that.

It's simply legal nonsense, and you've just made it up out of whole cloth.

And so if you can show me that I don't have authority, I will be glad to look at that, but until then, no.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: So are you shifting -- just for clarification, are you saying that you have it and that you've shifted it to me when I'm the one --

THE COURT: I'm saying I showed you where my authority came from. It comes from the law. It comes from the Constitution of the United States.

It comes from the Congressional acts and the law of the United States.

And your response was, "Those don't exist."

So we're very simple.

I say my law emanates -- my jurisdiction and authority emanates from the law, and you say
the law doesn't exist.

And you say that based on a filing in which you claim that the law supports you.

So that's where we're going to have a problem.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You can say it all day long.

But as far as I -- if it is that way, then I would be happy to receive that in a sworn declaration, saying -- verifying and validating your lawful authority that -- your position that  you believe you have.

I have not received anything.

Once I make a declaration, that was just a presumption at best, at most, that you had authority when I was first brought in, and mind you, I didn't come in willingly, knowingly, and intentionally.

I was drug in with shackles.

THE COURT: No, ma'am.

But, see, that's where you're wrong.

You just make up legal stuff. There's no presumption.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I agree with you.

There is no presumption.

THE COURT: There's a reality.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I just declare that there is no jurisdiction. That was done on the 24th.

At that point, the burden shifts to one who declares that -- or that presumes or proffers that they do have jurisdiction.

I haven't received any of that.

THE COURT: Yes, you have in their response.

It says --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: The response was duly rejected for cause, because --

THE COURT: You just wrote on it, "duly rejected for cause."

That doesn't mean it's rejected.

You can reject it.

And you did.

And that's fine.

You can throw it in the trash.

You can put it in a paper shredder. You can do whatever you
want with it.

I, on the other hand, and this court, accepted it, have read it, and pretty much agree with it.

Because it sets out our authority for the courts.

It sets it out.

It sets out the jurisdiction.

You just, quote, duly rejected it.

She set it out. So you asked me -- you asked me to give you stuff, and what you will do is duly reject it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I don't know --

THE COURT: Which means nothing.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I don't know what you're going to hand me.

THE COURT: It's legal mumbo jumbo.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: It is not.

THE COURT: It doesn't exist in the law, and you know that because you're a lawyer, that there is no way a criminal defendant charged with a criminal defense in this court or any other courts can walk in and write "duly rejected" and "void" on that indictment and walk away from their crime. But --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Actually, I do a hundred percent know that's how it actually functions, as far as the -- the things that you sent up to the Federal Reserve, the clerks --

THE COURT: I send nothing to Federal Reserve.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: You don't, but the court clerk
does --

THE COURT: No, she doesn't.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- the clerk of the court. The clerk of the court sends it out, and JP Morgan actually monetizes it.

What I'm telling you is, you can present me anything you want all day long.

THE COURT: But I'm saying --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I will review it.

I will either accept it or reject it.

That's how it actually works. I do not have proof of her identity. That's why it was rejected
without dishonor.

She can re-present it if she just gives me -- I don't have anything with her authorization from Nancy  Stallard.

Nancy Stallard supposedly hasn't even been reconfirmed by  the Senate yet.

I mean, there are a lot of issues here.

If you want to present me that documentation, but there was nothing -- you brought me in.

I told you I do not consent to you having authority over me.

I've given you documentation, even before I arrived, of my sole authority,  my ownership, and my status, my legal status.

And everyone went in, if there was no presumption, great, then my lack of jurisdiction is completely with  honor, and it is completely the only thing that exists here right now.

I do not have anything from you other than some words.

So if you want to put those words down on a piece of paper and sign it with your responsibility or in your position, whatever you want to do, just -- I will take that.

Hers was rejected because she -- Ann-Marie Svolto, because she sent me something, it didn't have her
identification. It didn't have her authorization from Nancy Stallard.

It didn't have Nancy Staller's authorization from whoever appointed her. And like I said, even supposedly Senate hasn't even reconfirmed her yet.

THE COURT: Here's where we have the biggest problem, two things.

Number one, so many of the facts you alleged are utter falsehoods.

They're completely not true. That's number one.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Which ones, I'm sorry?

THE COURT: When you said I reported to the Federal Bank.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I didn't say you.

All the documents from the clerk of court --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- where do you think that goes?

THE COURT: They don't go to any bank.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Who do they go to?

THE COURT: I know where they go.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

They will go to whoever you send them to.

And then from there, it's sent to another, and then from there, it's sent to another.

But I can tell you they end up at the Federal Reserve.

And JP Morgan Bank is actually the ones who usually -- we call them prison bonds is the street
term, but they are securities.

THE COURT: Okay.

Number two, I think I'm now getting where our real disconnect is.

You want all of us to submit all this authorization, validation, everything,  because you think that you have to consent to being prosecuted.

And unless we show you our authority, validation, justification, identification, you aren't in a position to consent.

The point is, you don't get to consent.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Under what authority?

THE COURT: Most criminal defendants are in here against their consent. They don't want to be prosecuted.

And they don't want to go to prison.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Well, that's where the disconnect has been in the legal system --

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- is that there is no consent. And people when they do say that they cancel any consent that's manufactured --

THE COURT: That's my point that your argument --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: We're sending people to jail that haven't consented.

THE COURT: Can I finish?

Your argument would mean for everybody out there, I can go rob a bank, I can go assault anybody, I can break in Ms. Jarraf's house, take all your belongings, and then simply say to the police, "You don't have any authority, and you can't take me to court, because I don't consent.

And, Ms. Prosecutor, you can't prosecute me.

And, Mr. Judge, you can't sentence me, because I don't consent. I'm going to go back out and do more of it, because I don't consent.

And if you file anything, I will write 'duly rejected,' and then you have to let me go."

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. That is not what I'm saying.

THE COURT: That is exactly what you're saying.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. That is not what I'm saying. It's similar to Mr. Parker Still, I understand where the call came down to have me arrested.

I understand where that came from.

I know where that came from.

Okay.

I haven't committed any crimes.

If anything, I have a 20-year history of stopping crimes from being committed. However, I understand why he was asked to do this.

I understand completely. I have not committed any crimes. And as far as --

THE COURT: This has nothing to do with what I said.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Yes, it does.

THE COURT: No.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Because there's an abuse.

You have -- same thing in the 1920s, you have the same thing going on where you have unconscionable illegal acts being  committed by those who have been charged with the duty to uphold laws.

And these laws were actually regulations of commerce.

You have things that were regulated, put into regulations, and people are actually in jails, whether you want to admit it or not or whether you know it or not, by their consent, but it is
a manufactured consent.

I am saying everyone, we do our jobs correctly, we do our jobs right. The only thing that was closed down was the fraud of corporations operating under the guise of government.

I have been in this country, I have worked not just for this country, but for every single human being on this planet only for the last 20 years.

That has been what I breathed and lived so that there is no more fraud being committed and there is no more injustice.

I'm saying let's do our jobs properly.

Let's do the ones we think we're doing.

So that is what is happening right now is the disclosure, the actual public awareness that the
corporation that was operating under the guise of government wasn't -- wasn't the United States that you thought you were working for.

That's all that was --

THE COURT: I understand.

But your whole praecipe and all your filings say you and your case should be dismissed, not because you're innocent, not because you didn't do anything wrong, but because nobody has any authority to prosecute you.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No. It's because you're sitting on a corporate bench that actually --

THE COURT: Because I'm sitting on a corporate bench, I have no authority to prosecute you or to -- I mean, to sit in judgment of you.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: This is where we had the disconnect that is being resolved right now because of this case, which is why I'm committed to having an amicable disposition of this case so that we can --

THE COURT: I mean, that's your point, though. Right?

That's your point.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: My point is, that your authority, your jurisdiction, they don't exist under the -- under laws  and applications that you didn't even know existed.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm saying that I gave you the authority to be able to issue that order, and I'm going to follow that until we have an amicable disposition in this  case.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I am not here to harm anyone.

I've never harmed anyone, so --

THE COURT: Well, the disconnect is you want an amicable disposition.

I'm pretty sure you would not agree to being found guilty and being either fined or sentenced to  time.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I don't consent to doing any of that, and it never was designed -- this case was not designed, and those involved made sure it would not go there -- it would
not go to that disposition.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Svolto, what's the government's response?

MS. SVOLTO: We'll rely primarily on our written response. But I'm not sure there's anything I can tell Your Honor or Ms. Tucci-Jarraf or Mr. Beane that will change anyone's minds here.

This Court has to find that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants.

It unquestionably has both.

The United States Code, 18 U.S.C. Section 3231 that Your Honor referenced earlier, gives this Court subject  matter jurisdiction over matters involving crimes against the  United States.

It is not in dispute that the defendants were charged by a grand jury for crimes against the United States.

So the Court, therefore, under the valid United States Code has subject matter jurisdiction over the criminal case. And the Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the defendants, because they have been charged with a criminal  offense.

The fact that they were brought here forcibly and without consent does not deprive the Court of personal jurisdiction.

As Your Honor has noted, criminal defendants do not have to agree to be prosecuted.

And this Court does not have to find that they consent to being prosecuted in order to have personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

So the Court certainly has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Beane and Ms. Tucci-Jarraf.

With respect to the UCC filings, those have no legal consequence.

It appears that the -- you know, the defendants are arguing that there was some sort of default judgment  issued against the United States that put the United States in foreclosure or that put the United States in some sort of default.

And then they filed the UCC statement saying that. The UCC statement itself has no legal relevance over the jurisdiction of this case.

It doesn't appear to be based on an actual judgment anywhere.

The fact that it states a declaration of judgment doesn't make it a declaration of
judgment.

It doesn't mean there was a default judgment.

Whether notice of the foreclosure was ever sent to the United States Secretary of State or anyone else does not make the UCC filing statement a valid, enforceable judgment in any way.

And because the UCC statement is merely -- a typical UCC filing statement is merely used to perfect a security lien.

The security interest and the lien would have to be based on a valid judgment. And no valid judgment against the United States exists here.

So the UCC filing statements are of no consequence to the finding of jurisdiction.

With respect to the Court and the United States having to prove their authority, the Court is under no
obligation to do so, neither is the United States.

If the Court has any obligation with respect to the defendants' argument in that matter, it's to tell them  that they're wrong.

So there is no obligation to prove that Your Honor is an authorized judge.

The jurisdiction lies in the statutes we've presented, and that is all that is of consequence here. The
Sixth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit have all addressed this.

These types of arguments where the court does not have jurisdiction over someone who's essentially claiming to  be a sovereign citizen are meritless, and that there is no need to consent to jurisdiction, but that the Court must find personal subject matter jurisdiction.

Both of those exist here, and that's the position of the United States.

So if there are no questions, I'll --

THE COURT: So are you familiar with the United States vs. Pryor?

MS. SVOLTO: Yes.

THE COURT: And did the Sixth Circuit hold that courts, much like this one, including this one, have  both subject matter and in persona jurisdiction in criminal prosecutions?

MS. SVOLTO: Yes.

THE COURT: Did the Supreme Court deny cert in that?

MS. SVOLTO: Yes.

That was -- that cert was denied last year.

The case came out in 2015 or 2016.

THE COURT: And is it your understanding that it's my duty to follow the law of the Sixth Circuit?

MS. SVOLTO: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Okay.

Thank you.

MS. SVOLTO: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Jarraf, response to that?

Are you familiar with the Pryor case, U.S. v. Pryor?

I can give you the cite if you'd like it.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: No, I'm familiar with all that.

THE COURT: Do you agree that it's part of my obligation to follow the rulings of the superior, the court above me, the court of appeals, the Sixth Circuit?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I am familiar with every case that Anne-Marie Svolto cited.

THE COURT: I didn't ask you that.

I asked you about matters such as stare decisis, precedent, things like  that, that I'm supposed to follow the law when they say what the law is. Right?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I'm familiar with that.

THE COURT: I mean, do you agree I'm supposed to do that or not?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Please just make your declarations, and then I'll respond to make my response that you had asked me for.

So as far as you kind of -- you asked me do I have aresponse?

I went to start, and then you started in about Pryor.

THE COURT: Well, I meant your response to that last part, to the Pryor case.

Do you have a response to that?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I have a response to she talked about sovereign citizen, the constitution, as well, was brought in, because she declared that she's relying on her written
statements.

Correct?

THE COURT: Yes, but --

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: So as far as sovereign citizen, I cancel that. That's an oxymoron to begin with.

I'm not a citizen --

THE COURT: You're not a citizen?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- or a sovereign. Sovereign requires someone underneath you to rule -- so that you can rule them.

I'm not a sovereign -- I'm not a sovereign citizen. I don't even know what that means.

I'm not a constitutionalist, or she even limited to me being a -- am I -- myself and
Mr. Randall Beane as being human -- what is it, a bled and -- let me refer to that.

She has just before you now declared that she's relying on her filings, her response to supposedly the motion.

Number one, I correct the fact that I have not made a motion.

I've made a praecipe, based on the due clause.

However, as far as her reference right now to a sovereign citizen, there's no way I can be a sovereign citizen.

It's an oxymoron just in the actual phrase, sovereign  citizen.

I don't subscribe to any of that.

I don't subscribe to constitutionalism, because of the basis under the fact that the constitution was a contract.

I was not a party to or signatory to it. However, through fraud and everything else that has been committed, everyone  had been brought in as an employee, which is what the Social Security cards in part are, just in part.

I'm not -- no longer that as well.

I'm not an employee of any corporation offered under the guise of government.

I'm not a citizen of any corporation operating under the guise of government.

Again, I do reject -- I duly reject Anne-Marie Svolto's presentment by relying on what she's filed. I orally duly cancel or reject it without dishonor for the same reasons as before, which is, she has not provided identification, due verification, validation of identification, authority or authorization to present on behalf of the United States.

And in response to everyone here, the record is still void of anyone's due verification and validation of identification, authority, authorization to present on  behalf of, in this case, Anne-Marie Svolto and Cynthia Davidson, to be able to present for the United States, as far as C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. presenting on behalf of, not sure, Eastern District of Tennessee, department -- excuse me, United  States, but that is the title you have, United States Eastern District of Tennessee magistrate judge.

So all of the record is void of any of that authorization, authority, and identification. I re-declare
orally and via praecipe to enter dismissal with prejudice and declaration of due cause.

That was document, I believe, 43, and then also Document 54, the praecipe, which was filed
yesterday, 10/17/17.

As if restated and incorporated by reference as --

THE REPORTER: As if what?

THE COURT: Set forth in full.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Sorry.

The microphone, do I need to pull it closer?

THE COURT: Just talk slower.

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: Okay.

So I accept every statement that has been issued by C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., Anne-Marie
Svolto, as well as Cynthia Davidson.

THE COURT: What do you mean you accept them?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: I accept all the statements you've made here today.

THE COURT: You accept that?

MS. TUCCI-JARRAF: -- as proof of collusion, ignorance, and corruption.

I at this point would say not corruption, because I believe that there is an ignorance, but
not by your design, but by the design of those who actually will be charged -- or excuse me, the accounts ledgered. But it is not due to your own willing and knowing actions of what
actually is the law. That is the problem here.

So at this point, all of your statements are accepted as proof of, number one, failure to not provide and intent not to provide the sworn verifications and validations that you have -- that are your burden to meet, as well as statements, proof of your ignorance and incompetency to move forward in
this particular case. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Beane.

MR. BEANE: Yes. I'd like to accept and adopt what
Ms. Tucci-Jarraf has just added.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BEANE: Also add to -- for myself, the sovereign citizen status that has been pinned on me, I've never admitted to being a sovereign citizen. I do not accept that statement.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BEANE: It is my understanding a sovereign citizen is considered a terrorist of the United States.

And I am not a terrorist. I do not accept being called a sovereign citizen in this courtroom.

THE COURT: All right. Is there anything else that you would like to say about any of your other filings?

MR. BEANE: Not at this point, no.

THE COURT: Okay.

Anything else on behalf of the government?

MS. SVOLTO: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The Court will -- I'm going to take all this under advisement.

Ordinarily, I would say I would rule on the filings.

Little difference here since Ms. Jarraf asked me not to do that, because it's specifically
not a motion, but rather an order to me to do something.

So I'll just have to take that under advisement, give it my due consideration.

And I will issue a ruling in any event, and we'll decide what to do going forward in this
matter.

All right. There being nothing further, court stands in recess till the trial [a different case] resumes this afternoon.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. This honorable court stands in recess.
(Proceedings adjourned at 11:24 a.m.)

STATE OF TENNESSEE
COUNTY OF KNOX
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, Rebekah M. Lockwood, RPR, CRR, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings; and that the foregoing pages  constitute a true and complete computer-aided transcription of my original stenographic notes to the best of my knowledge, skill, and ability.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at Knoxville, Knox County, Tennessee this 2nd day of November, 2017.










Read the Complete Text of Transcript on Lamplighter's Wake HERE

Source: http://terrancognito.blogspot.com/2017/11/transcript-october-18-2017-jurisdiction.html