Ed and Elaine full colon Brown

[ElfNinosMom]

I think Ed and Elaine's best bet is to use The Chewbacca Defense.

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewbacca from "Star Wars"). This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)

Why would a Wookee -- an eight foot tall Wookee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?

Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation ... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Of course, all credit for the Chewbacca Defense goes to South Park.

[Joey Smith]

I think Ed and Elaine's best bet is to use The Chewbacca Defense.

I think they have been using a variant of The Chewbacca Defense, although The Chewbacca Defense is easier to understand.

[Thule]

Notice of Non-consent

The Edward-Lewis :Brown and the Elaine-A1ice :Brown do not consent to these
proceedings, and will not participate in any current or future proceedings for the
following reasons:

It's kind of like seeing a five-year old leaving the playground in a huff because the other kids are stupid-heads who don´t want to play by his rules. Except he calls the other kids "corporations", not "stupid-heads".

[jkeeb]

All these troubles will pass once Ed and Elaine get together and develop a well-written writ of mandamus.

[grixit]

Amazing how relatively little contact it takes to keep a folie a deux going. There's a pschycology phd in there somewhere.

[Gregg]

Amazing how relatively little contact it takes to keep a folie a deux going. There's a pschycology phd in there somewhere.

If only they had good mental health insurance, there's a lifetime supply of German Built Luxury SUVs in there.

[notorial dissent]

Is there a Notice of So What, No One Cares, that could be auto filed in response to some of the E & E nonsense??? It would certainly cut down on wasted effort, since there is no rational or even real response to some of it.

[Doktor Avalanche]

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Hell, makes perfect sense to me.

Good Lord...I've been on Quatloos for too long.

[Nikki]

Is there a Notice of So What, No One Cares, that could be auto filed in response to some of the E & E nonsense??? It would certainly cut down on wasted effort, since there is no rational or even real response to some of it.

Unfortunately, none of the courts have yet adopted it. Howevfer, you might want to refer to IRS Forms WGAS-5 and STFU-3.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Darn. Trial in absentia.

Takes all the fun out of it.

[.]

When the first salvo of their junk hit the docket, I posited here the question of how Elaine was planning on representing herself while simultaneously not attending her trial.

Apparently, she hasn't yet figured that out.

Perhaps the evil prosecutors haven't provided her with the proper crayon. Not to mention the "federal" UCC code figment of their delusions.

[grixit]

She could send her legal fiction.

[Famspear]

Darn. Trial in absentia.

Takes all the fun out of it.

By contrast, a vacation in absentia might be fun.

[Imalawman]

By contrast, a vacation in absentia might be fun.

Not really. Absentia is the poorest province in Albania and is most noted as being the toxic waste dumping ground for southern Europe. Also noted for its population of very large insects and bats, but no birds. Things are so bad in Absentia, that people there will scrape together a few hundred dollars so they can buy a house in Detroit and move there.

I'm sorry, I just can't seem understand those words strung together....did people actually used to buy homes there or something?

[Duke2Earl]

I think perhaps the problem is the full colon. Perhaps some Ex-Lax might help.

[LPC]

I think perhaps the problem is the full colon. Perhaps some Ex-Lax might help.

Seeing the thread titled "full colon Brown" always makes me a little queasy.

[Cpt Banjo]

I think perhaps the problem is the full colon. Perhaps some Ex-Lax might help.

Extracting their heads would work even better.

[Doktor Avalanche]

For a full colon, I recommend a Phillips Screwdriver.

That's vodka and Phillips Milk of Magnesia, folks...

[Dezcad]

Latest Order in the colon's case- it deals withe the claim of "Federal UCC law", the numerous frivolous filings and other interesting matters in the case.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

v.
Docket no. 1:09-CR-30-GZS
EDWARD BROWN & ELAINE BROWN,)
Defendants. )

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

Before the Court are one fully briefed motion and some additional filings by the
Defendants. The fully briefed motion related to an outstanding portion of Defendants’ Motion to Continue (Docket # 26). Although the Court has previously granted Defendants a continuance to allow them additional time to prepare for trial, the Court separately ordered the Government to file a written response to the restrictions that Defendants complained about in paragraph five of their Motion. The Government filed its response (Docket # 40) on March 20, 2009. Defendants filed a reply (Docket # 49) on March 27, 2009.

Defendants original complaints included: (1) limited time for daily meetings, (2) “no
resources”, (3) limited stamps for mailings, (4) restrictions on phone calls, including calls to
attorneys, (5) being placed in maximum security with 23/7 lockdown, (6) “no discovery” and (7) allowed no visitors. (See Defs. Mot. to Continue (Docket # 25) at 1-2.) The Government’s
Response reports on the length of Defendants’ daily meetings (many of which exceed one hour) and lists the materials that Defendants have been provided, including access to research
materials. The Response also explains that the Defendants were moved into the general
population at Stafford County Jail on March 11, 2009 and since that time have had regular
visitor, telephone and mailing privileges, including “unlimited visitations with their respective
stand-by counsel” and free legal mailings. It also indicates that Defendants have access to word processing on computer with the ability to have documents printed since March 2, 2009. The Response also indicates that Defendants once again refused to accept both electronic and paper discovery on March 17, 2009.

The Court has reviewed the Reply filed by Defendants in its entirety. To the extent that
the reply reasserts any of the previously pressed complaints, it does not tie those complaints to Defendants’ trial preparation needs. With one possible exception, Defendants claim that they are being denied access to “federal UCC law.” However, the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) is not enacted as part of the United States Code. It is the Court’s understanding that Defendants have been directed to the New Hampshire Revised Statutes database, which would contain the UCC to the extent it was enacted in New Hampshire. Absent some additional request for specific legal materials, the Court finds that the legal research materials available to Defendants are adequate to allow them to prepare for trial. The Court reminds both Defendants that they can and should utilize their standby counsel for assistance in accessing legal research.

To the extent that the Court previously reserved ruling on the “paragraph 5” portion of
Defendants’ Motion for Continuance, the Court now DENIES that portion of the Motion. The
Government’s representations show that adequate measures are currently being taken in order to allow these two pro se Defendants to prepare for their upcoming trial. Defendants are certainly free to file additional motions at any time if they believe they are being denied access to anything they need in order to prepare for trial.

The Court now turns its attention to Defendants other pending filings. To the extent that
Defendants’ March 26, 2009 Notice and Demand to Dismiss Charges (Docket # 45) was
docketed as a motion to dismiss, the Court will reserve ruling until the motion is fully briefed.
The Court has received multiple other “notices” from Defendants that it has endorsed as
frivolous filings. Additionally, Defendants filed their “Notice of Refusal of Court-Appointed
Counsel” (Docket # 44) on March 26, 2009 and their Notice of Non-Consent (Docket # 48) on
March 27, 2009. The Court has reviewed these latest two filings in the context of the
Defendants’ other eleven filings since the March 11, 2009 hearing. (See Docket #s 34-39, 43,
45, 46, 47 & 49). As the Court has already noted on the docket, most, if not all, of Defendants’
filings have been completely frivolous and do not comply with any recognized rule of procedure.

Defendants’ Notice of Refusal of Court-Appointed Counsel (Docket # 44) incorporates
many of their previous irrelevant assertions and culminates in their assertion that Defendants are terminating “[a]ll officers of the court” in connection with this case. Currently, Defendants do not have any court-appointed counsel to terminate. They do have court-appointed standby counsel (who, to date, have not sought to withdraw or made any other filings). It is well established in the First Circuit that the Court may appoint standby counsel over a defendant’s objections. See, e.g., United States v. Gomez-Rosario, 418 F.3d 90, 99 (1st Cir. 2005); see also, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 184 (1984). Thus, to the extent Defendants’ Notice of Refusal of Court-Appointed Counsel can be read as Defendants objecting to the continued appointment of standby counsel, the Court overrules any such objection.

Turning to Defendants’ Notice of Non-Consent (Docket # 48), Defendants reiterate a
statement first asserted at the March 11, 2009 hearing that they “will not participate in any
current or future proceedings” and that they will adopt a position of “silence” that should not be interpreted as “acquiescence or acceptance.” (March 27, 2009 Notice (Docket # 48) at 1-2.) Of course, to date, Defendants have participated in these proceedings and made no fewer than eighteen filings on the docket. The Court does have concerns regarding the Defendants
participation to date, including their continued refusal to accept any discovery.

The Defendants are facing serious charges and, if convicted, will be facing very serious
sentences. As Defendants were advised at their arraignments, the most serious charge in the
pending indictment (Count IV) carries a statutory minimum mandatory 30-year prison sentence
with a potential sentence of up to life in prison. Given these serious penalties, the Court takes
seriously its obligation to ensure that Defendants’ rights are protected and that each of them are able to mount a vigorous defense. With this interest in mind, the Court is directing Defendants to focus their efforts on the evidence and relevant laws.

Having reviewed all of the Defendants’ filings to-date, the Court appreciates that
Defendants believe these criminal proceedings violate various provisions of the United States
Constitution and the Uniform Commercial Code and that the names used in the indictment are
not their proper legal names. In this Court’s assessment, these arguments lack any merit.
However, these arguments are duly noted on the record and preserved should the Defendants
wish to present them to other courts during the appeals process. Going forward and preparing
for trial, Defendants would be well-advised to also consider pursuing alternative arguments and defenses. By doing so, Defendants do not waive or forfeit any of the arguments and defenses already asserted.

Defendants are urged to review the discovery, as the Court has already directed their
standby counsel to do. Defendants are urged to take advantage of the opportunity to meet with standby counsel to discuss the evidence, relevant legal research and trial strategy.

If Defendants do refuse to participate in future proceedings and/or limit their participation
to the continual filing of “notices” that are patently frivolous, the Court has the ability to enjoin them from making further frivolous filings and can require standby counsel to play a greater role in screening filings as was done in Gomez-Rosario. See 418 F.3d at 100. Defendants are also hereby warned that the right of self-representation is not absolute and the Court will not allow Defendants to disrupt the previously scheduled trial in this matter by engaging in conduct that represents a complete disregard of the procedural rules that govern this case.

Counsel for the Government are hereby ORDERED to file a status update regarding any
further attempts to deliver discovery to Defendants and/or their standby counsel. Without
disclosing any privileged communication, standby counsel are hereby ORDERED to file a status
report indicating whether they have met with their respective Defendants either in-person or
telephonically and certifying that they are reviewing the discovery provided in accordance with the Court’s earlier admonitions. All status reports shall be filed by April 10, 2009.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2009.

[Nikki]

In addition to court-appointed counsel, I see a clear need for a court-appointed chiropracter.

Judge Singal is bending over backward so far that I'm astonished he hasn't dislocated his spine.