Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Don't like the legal system? Create your own.

West Marin County - Slip Sliding Away

Who shook the nut tree?

 

If only life were so simple

Not happy with the Supreme Court deciding Drakes Bay Oyster Company's case had no merit, DBOC, along with twenty others, recently decided to work within a legal system newly created by Barbara Scott, a "Deputy Justice of the Peace." It is one outside of what they have spent the past nineteen months inside of. Included was Sarah Rolph, a tea party supporter from Carlisle, Massachusetts. Representatives from The Department of the Interior and National Park Service, while "invited", were unable, or perhaps unwilling, to attend.

 

What would Judge Judy say?

If it's late it's late.

 

Amicus Curiae filed late, but who cares? It's Barbara Scott's legal system.

Barbara Scott states the justification for the creation of the "court" and "jury" was based on an Amicus Curiae filed late with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. To say it was lacking is kind. As described by the court system:

Received original and 0 copies of Amicus Curiae - Pending Barbara Scott brief of 9 pages. Excerpts of record in 0 volumes. Served on: 01/14/2014. Major deficiencies: case closed, untimely. Other deficiencies: No motion to become amicus was filed with brief. [8941285] (MT)  

What would Judge Judy say?

California is what?

 

If the State of California is a corporation, is it also a person? Does it sell stock?

After receiving "evidence," hearing "testimony" from witnesses, and listening to the rector of a local Episcopal church, the "Deputy Justice of the Peace" Barbara Scott asked if there were "any more witnesses." There being none, Ms. Scott excused those who were not jurors in order that a "decision" could be made. As explained to the "jurors," the decision would define the State of California as a "corporation" and the United State Government as a "military corporation with the IMF or whatever you want to call it," and then that leases be transferred to the "California Republic Department of Fish and Game." Confusion was apparent in the questions asked by a juror, but...

 

What would Judge Judy say?

(and what do those fringes on the flag mean?)

This is not how a court is supposed to work!

 

Hold on, a new witness has arrived late, but who cares? It's Barbara Scott's legal system.

Fortunately for those present, a witness arrived so Ms. Scott did not have to explain just what was happening. He was allowed to discuss his opinions of people and how the "fecundity" of Drakes Estero was being diminished by the Johnson Oyster Company. When an "unidentified female voice" said "we thought you were deliberating" she was told "we were" but, well, it's Barbara's court.

 

What would Judge Judy say?

- censored -

 

Jurors revolt and render their own decision.

After the late witness finished the jury got back to its deliberating. Apparently impressed with the evidence and the witnesses, it only took 25 minutes for the jury to reach a unanimous verdict. Unfortunately it was not quite what Ms. Scott had asked them to vote on, leaving out references to what Ms. Scott defined as the "corporate" State of California and the IMF owned US Government, instead choosing to only reference the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Department of the Interior has 30 days to appeal. Or maybe 20. Or 5. Ms. Scott was unavailable to clarify.

 

Close enough for Barbara.

 

Close enough for Justice of the Peace Barbara Scott's legal system

Pleased with how well she had orchestrated everything, Ms. Scott thanked everyone for their 90 minutes of time spent in her legal system and adjourned the meeting. A good time was had by all and all agreed this year's crop was bountiful.

Update 8/6: To read an "official" transcript of the "trial" you may click here.