Elaine Brown's competence and Ed's control of her

[.]

That's a serious case of narcissism piled on top of serious delusions. Makes Ed: family incarcerated look like a piker, not an easy thing to do.

[notorial dissent]

Second, if Elaine is really brainwashed, maybe it'll be good for her, which no matter how mean I am, would also be good. Without Ed she becomes just another Daffy Dentist.

I was thinking about this in my bubble bath last night. The judge has good reason to question that Elaine in unduly controlled by Ed.

After Ed and Elaine were arrested in October 2007, all contact between them was cut off by the BOP after an attempted conference call set up by the idiot brigade of supporters. Ed went quiet and stewed for months, but Elaine filed dozens of UCC-type crap filings. It wasn't Ed who prepared and sent in the 1099-OID stuff, it was Elaine, without Ed telling her what to do.

As for the "Elaine is out of question with reality", she's simply parroting the same absurb legal theories that Dogwalker was relying on and the BOP shrink said that such a lack of originality indicated that he isn't delusional.

Demo, while I feel no sympathy towards either of the parties here, it does come to mind after looking over events of the last year you are quite right in your thoughts here.

I personally think Ed family:really stupid is certifiably bat shit, but not legally incompetent as far as the law is concerned. He is just a really nasty, mean spirited, violent waste of protoplasm who deserves whatever happens to him.

Elaine on the other hand is something of a contradiction. She obviously was smart enough and good enough to get through dental school, develop a practice, and stay at it for a good number of years, enough so that she racked up a considerable tax debt in the process. On the other hand, I do not see her as being particularly smart in any other fashion, and probably has few outside interests other than her practice and family, which is why I do not believe the TD gibberish she has been regurgitating is anything other than a parroting of Ed family:really stupid.

She quite frankly has the wrong personality and mind set for this particular type of nonsense, but she does want/need approval and constant support to such an extent and on such a basic level that she will do anything to get it. On the surface, she seems to be a quite affable friendly likeable grandmotherly sort of person, who must have inspired confidence and loyalty in her patients or they wouldn’t have kept coming back. I have not, however, seen any indication of any independence of person or spirit, and from what I have heard lately, she seems to require some kind of constant presence to keep her going.

I haven’t heard anything about her previous husband, although if the children are any indication he was no prize either, and I would suspect that he too was fairly dominating, and that she followed whatever path he chose, just as she has blindly followed Ed family:really stupid.

I have yet to see any indication of any personal independence, and in fact what I do see is that all her actions are reflections of Ed. I think Elaine is a very needy and insecure person who has to have constant reassurance and outside support, and that to get it she would probably do almost anything.

I do not think she is capable of critical thought at this point, nor has she been for quite some time, and has in fact been so brain washed and controlled, that the actions she now finds herself in jail for are really not her own. I am quite convinced that if she is examined by a competent practitioner that the finding will be; that she is not capable of putting on her own defense as long as Ed is allowed to over shadow her, and that if she is separated from him both physically and emotionally that there will be a marked change in her personality.

I do think that if Elaine is to have a ghost of a chance of actually defending herself in this or any other matters, that she needs to be immediately separated from Ed and from his trial and any and all contact with him until this matter is resolved, otherwise she will continue to parrot his nonsense and go down the same shute to oblivion he has already chosen for himself.

I guess since he didn’t get to sacrifice her bloodily to his cause/ego, he’d just do it in pieces by taking her down with him.

[Number Six]

According to the Wikipedia article on the Browns, Elaine is at the prison complex in Fort Worth, Texas, I had thought she was in Danbury.

As for the Brown's "guru", there should be some legal basis to get his purulent mass out of circulation, and out of threat and provocation of other such fragile situations.

[Demosthenes]

According to the Wikipedia article on the Browns, Elaine is at the prison complex in Fort Worth, Texas, I had thought she was in Danbury.

As for the Brown's "guru", there should be some legal basis to get his purulent mass out of circulation, and out of threat and provocation of other such fragile situations.

Elaine was transferred from her relatively cushy prison in Danbury to a medium security admin prison in Texas as a result of her filing those phony 1099s against the judge. You know, the ones she filed without Ed telling her what to do...

After she was indicted, however, she and Ed were both moved to a county prison in the New Hampshire area pending trial.

Who is the guru?

[Famspear]

According to the Wikipedia article on the Browns, Elaine is at the prison complex in Fort Worth, Texas, I had thought she was in Danbury.

As for the Brown's "guru", there should be some legal basis to get his purulent mass out of circulation, and out of threat and provocation of other such fragile situations.

Elaine was transferred from her relatively cushy prison in Danbury to a medium security admin prison in Texas as a result of her filing those phony 1099s against the judge. You know, the ones she filed without Ed telling her what to do...

After she was indicted, however, she and Ed were both moved to a county prison in the New Hampshire area pending trial.

Who is the guru?

In the Wikipedia article, I have now deleted the references to the prior prisons residences of family Brown....

[Number Six]

Who is the guru?

Who is the guru?

[/quote]

In the Wikipedia article, I have now deleted the references to the prior prisons residences of family Brown....[/quote]

"Guru" was the wrong word. I was thinking about Ray Karczewski.

[notorial dissent]

I thought that little pimple, Joe Haas, was their “legal council”.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Demand the Court Follow their Own Law and PROVE JURISDICTION over Ed and Elaine Brown Before making a further Mockery of Justice in America.


By Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

So how much did I rack up, Ray-Ray?

[Thule]

Scoop!

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... /905310344

And the ever-coherent Joe Haas chimes in with his opinion, using his brilliant understanding of language to prove that "to prompt" means "without having a little drink after dinner". Or something:

prompt = without delay
delay - = postpone
post = after
pone = meal

[Thule]

Actually, Haas reminds me of the chief character in the play "Erasmus Montanus", by Holberg.

Erasmus returns home after several years at the Copenhagen university, eager to impress his family and friends with his newfound knowledge and impressive use of logic. He then proceeds to prove that his mother is a stone ("A stone can't fly, Mother can't fly, ergo Mother is a stone"). General upheaval and weeping, until Erasmus sets things straight ("A stone can't talk, Mother can talk, ergo Mother is not a stone").

Erasmus then proceeds to make a fool of himself in all kinds of situations, and merriment occurs.

[webhick]

Looks like the Monitor has turned off commenting on the article. Maybe Joe will freak out in a 42 page letter to the editor.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Yeah I noticed that, too.

It's dissapointing, really - I had my heart set on reading some authentic frontier gibberish today.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Try the Monitor again. Joe ass has posted his Gibberish.

[Demosthenes]

Browns Say They Want To Represent Themselves
Couple Facing Weapons Charges Say They Don't Believe In System
POSTED: 11:12 am EDT June 1, 2009

CONCORD, N.H. -- A couple convicted of tax evasion preparing to stand trial on conspiracy and weapons charges said Monday they want to represent themselves, even though they don't believe in the legal system.

Ed and Elaine Brown are preparing to stand trial on conspiracy and weapons charges. At a pretrial hearing Monday, the two said they want to represent themselves, but they may not participate much in the trial.

Elaine Brown told a federal judge that the she won't take part in the trial, saying, "If the prosecutor wants to steal my life, he does it without me."

Ed Brown also told the judge that he doesn't believe in the system. He said that he views defense attorneys as a legal affectation and part of the legal conspiracy.

The Browns were convicted in 2007 for failure to pay income taxes. Prior to their arrest and conviction, the Browns kept federal officers at bay from their Plainfield, N.H. home for nearly a year.

The conspiracy and weapons charges are in connection with that standoff.

The judge told the Browns that they would have to be in the courtroom for at least part of the jury selection and the trial. He also warned them that he believes they are hurting their chances if they persist in their decision to represent themselves.

The defense has also asked the judge to rule on the competency of Elaine Brown to stand trial. The judge said he would issue a ruling on that later.

The trial is scheduled to get under way on June 30 and is expected to last about 10 days.

[Famspear]

From the article:

.....the Browns kept federal officers at bay from their Plainfield, N.H. home for nearly a year.

I would count from roughly January 18 (the date of the guilty verdict for Ed) to October 4, 2007. Eight and a half months, approximately. Or maybe the time should start before that - during the trial whenever Ed stopped attending (not sure of the date). A long time, granted. I am splitting hairs, but in my opinion "nearly a year" might be a bit of a stretch.

[Demosthenes]

From the article:

.....the Browns kept federal officers at bay from their Plainfield, N.H. home for nearly a year.

I would count from roughly January 18 (the date of the guilty verdict for Ed) to October 4, 2007. Eight and a half months, approximately. Or maybe the time should start before that - during the trial whenever Ed stopped attending (not sure of the date). A long time, granted. I am splitting hairs, but in my opinion "nearly a year" might be a bit of a stretch.

Ed's arrest warrant was dated the day he didn't show up at trial. 9 months would be far more accurate than 1 year.

[Scoop]

From the article:

.....the Browns kept federal officers at bay from their Plainfield, N.H. home for nearly a year.

I would count from roughly January 18 (the date of the guilty verdict for Ed) to October 4, 2007. Eight and a half months, approximately. Or maybe the time should start before that - during the trial whenever Ed stopped attending (not sure of the date). A long time, granted. I am splitting hairs, but in my opinion "nearly a year" might be a bit of a stretch.

Ed's arrest warrant was dated the day he didn't show up at trial. 9 months would be far more accurate than 1 year.

It's actually even trickier than that, since Elaine didn't join Ed for several weeks. I stick to "nearly nine months," even though the tenure of both Browns was closer to eight.

[Demosthenes]

Yesterday's hearing sounds like a doozie.

From Scoop's new article:

In a conversation with Elaine Brown, Judge George Singal described the couple's legal strategy as "almost a suicide pact" and said the couple had little chance of avoiding guilty verdicts without changing course.

"I am concerned at this point in your life, you're heading towards the edge of a cliff without a second thought," Singal said.

The entire article is here:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /906020324

[Dezcad]

Yesterday's hearing sounds like a doozie.

From Scoop's new article:

In a conversation with Elaine Brown, Judge George Singal described the couple's legal strategy as "almost a suicide pact" and said the couple had little chance of avoiding guilty verdicts without changing course.

"I am concerned at this point in your life, you're heading towards the edge of a cliff without a second thought," Singal said.

The entire article is here:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /906020324

If Elaine believes this:

"I cannot consent to re-enter your court and play by your rules," she said. "I am prepared for the consequences because there is a greater justice."

then nothing that the judge or her stand-by counsel will say to her will change her mind. After all, in Elaine's brainwashed mind, everyone involved (judge, prosecutor and stand by counsel) are all trying to "trick" her into consenting to the jurisdiction of the court. She, and Ed, feel that they are too "smart" to fall for that.

[LPC]

In a conversation with Elaine Brown, Judge George Singal described the couple's legal strategy as "almost a suicide pact"

A classic folie a deux.

"I don't live in this legal fiction world," Ed Brown said.

Does he think that the prison he lives in is also a legal fiction?