Going Swimming in the Brown Jury Pool

[Demosthenes]

Double dang.

[Dezcad]

Double dang.

If I worked at WMUR (or I would suggest this if I even knew someone who did), my course of action would be to do an interview with E&E before the trial, on the condition that none of it would be released until after the trial. This would avoid any pretrial publicity concern and not taint the jury pool.

WMUR could then interview them after the trial and it would be interesting what, if any, differences there were between the two interviews.

Wishful thinking, I know, but it would be interesting IMHO.

[Demosthenes]

I suspect that WMUR asked for the judge's permission because the BOP and/or Marshals requested that the county jail restrict E&E's visitors.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'd much rather see the interview be held from the respective federal prisons where Ed: and Elaine: will be spending a very long time....

[Dezcad]

I suspect that WMUR asked for the judge's permission because the BOP and/or Marshals requested that the county jail restrict E&E's visitors.

I agree. It is just that I think that WMUR could probably get an interview with them if:

-WMUR agrees to not release anything until after the conclusion of the trial;
-WMUR speaks to the AUSA assigned to the case for concurrence in a Motion based on the above condition;
-WMUR gets something in writing from E&E consenting to the interview;
-WMUR files an appropriate motion (not a fax request to Judge's chambers) with a proposed Order prohibiting the release of the interview prior to the conclusion of the trial that way the Court has the power of contempt should WMUR release anything.

Just my $0.02.

[LPC]

I hope the judge denies this objection. WMUR has been very good at calling Ed's crap exactly what it is.

The reason that the government is opposing the interview may be exactly because WMUR has been very good at calling Ed's crap exactly what it is, because such a report could further taint the jury pool and make a fair trial that much more difficult (and the possibility of an appeal that much more likely).

[LPC]

I hope the judge denies this objection. WMUR has been very good at calling Ed's crap exactly what it is.

The reason that the government is opposing the interview may be exactly because WMUR has been very good at calling Ed's crap exactly what it is, because such a report could further taint the jury pool and make a fair trial that much more difficult (and the possibility of an appeal that much more likely).

I should have continued reading the thread before responding, because that seems to be the basis of the judge's order denying the interview.

The Browns are their own worst enemies, but that doesn't mean that the court should enable their self-destructive tendencies.

[Gregg]

But really, what are the chances that Ed&Elaine family:Stupid are going to be able to write something coherent enough to get filed as an appeal?

[Demosthenes]

But really, what are the chances that Ed&Elaine family:Stupid are going to be able to write something coherent enough to get filed as an appeal?

Yep. They didn't even bother appealing their tax/conspiracy/structuring case.

[.]

They didn't even bother appealing their tax/conspiracy/structuring case.

Perhaps that was a function of them being too busy either planning to build or building pipe-bombs and other assorted illegal devices together with their delusion that the evil goobermint would somehow decide that they were right, give up and just let them go on their merry way.

In any case, after this set of convictions they'll have plenty of time on their hands to scribble great piles of gibberish that some poor group of clerks and perhaps even a judge or two will have to slog through trying to discern some faint hint of an appellate issue.

There has to be a pony in there somewhere!

[Dezcad]

The latest filing of E&E in their criminal case. The Browns should be out soon since they've ordered their own release.

Under the Title 4, 1&2 Flag UCC-1#20070029134
2009AD, May 16 009821 F!!_[ p

For: Arnold H . Huftalen
d/b/a Asst. U.S. Attorney
55 Pleasant St.
Concord,N.H. [03301]
Respondent
From: Edward-Lewis:Brown©, Creditor
Elaine-Alice :Brown©, Creditor
c/o 266 County Farm Rd .
Dover, N.H. [03820]
Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal .
Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent .

Re: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v . EDWARD BROWN and ELAINE BROWN
Case # 09-CR-00030-0I/02-CZS

Affidavit of Non-Response

Affidavit of Edward-Lewis :Brown© and Elaine-Alice :Brown© by Special Visitation, of
Response to U .S. Attorney's Objection to Creditors' "Notice and Demand" Corrected
May 2, 2009, was sent to your office on Apri121, 2009 .

Said Affidavits have not been rebutted by the U .S. Attorney's office/UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA .

It is a maxim of law that an affidavit not rebutted point for point stands as truth .
Respondent has thus stipulated to the facts in the Affidavits submitted.
Respondent is thus, by retaining the bodies of Creditors, Edward-Lewis:Brown© and
Elaine-Alice :Brown©, flesh-and-blood man and woman, and not the DEBTORS,
EDWARD BROWN© and ELAINE BROWN© as indicated on the indictment, in
violation of law .

By Order of. EDWARD BROWN© By Order of. ELAINEBROWN©,


By: Edward-Lewis:Brown©, Creditor By : Elaine-Alice :Brown©, Creditor
Holder-in-due-Course with unlimited commercial liability


Order

Thus, it is ordered that the Creditors, Edward-Lewis :Brown© and Elaine-Alice :Brown©
be released, along with their property, as a matter of law, effective immediately .

By Order of: EDWARD BROWN© DEBTOR By Order of: ELAINE BROWN©DEBTOR

By: Edward-Lewis:Brown©, . Creditor
Holder-in-due-Course with unlimited commercial liability
By: Elaine-Alice :Brown©, Creditor
Holder-in-due-Course with unlimited commercial liability

[Gregg]

Is there not some legal mechanism to pimp slapping them into not filing those crazy documents? Granted, they're already in jail and doing their level best to make it a life sentence, but c'mon...

[Pottapaug1938]

Outside of contempt of court citations, there's probably not much that can be dome to stop these buffoons, especially if they are filing them pro se. I suppose that, if they do wind up with life sentences, the judge can order the contempt sentences to be served from and after the completion of the life sentence, which at the very least would delay their parole.

[Melted Rabbit]

Adding "-", " :", and "©" to one's name is so yesterday, perhaps if they tried using mathematical operators and other symbols present in Unicode instead.

For instance:

Edward≻Lewis⊆Brown☭

Elaine≒Alice⊊Brown♹


‭I would assume I am sorry for this, but not much.‮

[Judge Roy Bean]

Outside of contempt of court citations, there's probably not much that can be dome to stop these buffoons, especially if they are filing them pro se. I suppose that, if they do wind up with life sentences, the judge can order the contempt sentences to be served from and after the completion of the life sentence, which at the very least would delay their parole.

There is no parole in the Federal system, so that's not a threat.

In my mind, the issue is the proliferation of idiocy. The more stuff like this that litters the dockets the more it gets pointed to as "proof" of the corruption of the judicial system.

I don't think I've heard of a defendant being deemed vexatious for filings during trial, but it would seem to me that the rules allow the court to order all filings to be reviewed by stand-by counsel to preempt a pro se defendant from harming his/her case.

[Pottapaug1938]

There is no parole in the Federal system, so that's not a threat.

Thanks for the correction, JRB.Come to think of it, I seem to recall reading about an appellate case where the appellant essentially tried to assert that he lost at trial because his standby counsel failed to prevent him from making an ass of himself through his bizarre statements, court pleadings and the like.

[wserra]

Morrison claims that his standby counsel ineffectively assisted him. We have held that “there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation ... where [the defendant] shared the duties of conducting her defense with a lawyer.” United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 846, 118 S.Ct. 130, 139 L.Ed.2d 80 (1997). As we held in Schmidt, without a constitutional right to standby counsel, a defendant is not entitled to relief for the ineffectiveness of standby counsel. Id. While we stated in Schmidt that we might entertain a claim for ineffective assistance of standby counsel if standby counsel “held that title in name only and, in fact, acted as the defendant's lawyer throughout the proceedings,” id., the record indicates that Morrison retained control of his own defense throughout the proceedings, so that his standby counsel was in reality, as well as in name, only that. Therefore, we need not examine the effectiveness of [a friend of mine]'s standby assistance.

United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1998). This guy went through about half the SDNY CJA panel. His trial was the gossip of the courthouse while it was in progress.

[Dezcad]

Here's the latest court filing, including a reference to the Illuminati.

May 27, 2009

To: Michael J. Gunnison
Acting U.S. AttorneyTerry L. Ollila
Asst. U.S. Attorney
55 Pleasant St .
Concord,N.H. [03301]

From: Edward-Lewis:Brown©, Creditor
Elaine-Alice-Brown©, Creditor
c/o 266 County Farm Rd .
Dover, N.H. [03820 ]
Re: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v . EDWARD BROWN and ELAINE BROWN
Case #09-CR-00030-01/02-GZS

Response to U.S. Attorney's Objection to Interview

I . For years the government has been using the media to demonize us to the public. The U.S . Attorney's statement that we will be unduly influencing the public before trial shows that he feels it is acceptable for the government to influence the public, but not for the accused to do so . Again this only shows an unlevel playing field where the U.S . Attorney's uses the court in collusion to suppress any truth or fact. The court's system is adversarial rather than seeking the truth.

2. The U.S. Attorney assumes to know the motivations behind the request for the interview. The history of us shows that for years we have been outspoken about the truth; he thus has no basis for his statement .

3 . The U.S. Attorney states that we waited until this late hour to request an interview. He assumes we have not done so previously . We have.

4. The U.S. Attorney falsely assumes we have not publicized anything prior to the open letter. We have.

5. The U.S. Attorney uses the main stream media to publicize negative articles about us and other victims, while we are not able to access the same, as he knows sensationalism sells .

6. The U.S. Attorney seems disturbed by the article printed in the New Hampshire Free Press, which has a very small circulation, while all articles about us appearing in main stream media with huge circulations, have all been negative.

7. The U.S. Attorney wrongly presumes to know our motivations, which he claims is to influence the jury, while our motivation is only to inform the public of the truth.

8. a. The U.S . Attorney refers to the 6a' Amendment ; he must know that we have been denied "Assistance of Counsel" as guaranteed by this amendment, which does not state that said Counsel must be bar attorneys .
b . The U.S. Attorney must also be aware that we were not allowed our witnesses in our first trial, from which this trial stems .
c. The U.S. Attorney must also be aware that we were not allowed our evidence in the first trial, from which this trial stems .
d. The U.S. Attorney must also be aware of the jury tampering done in the first trial when the jury was told by the Judge McAuliffe that our testimony was our opinion of the law, and he would tell them what the law, when in fact our entire defense was the fact and application of lawful and legal law .

9. The U.S. Attorney is aware that we never received a fair trial in 2007, and it appears we are not receiving lawful due process considerations in these current allegations against our legal fictions .

10. The U.S. Attorney should be aware that either constitution does not confer rights, as all rights come from God. The constitutions only guarantees rights conferred by God.

11 . The U.S. Attorney should be aware that the constitution was written to tell the government what they cannot do to the people . Do you understand, Counselor ?

12. The U.S. Attorney, in view of the above statements, appears to be trying to keep us in a position of impossibility by trying to over-control every aspect of all sides, and using the court to achieve his purposes . The U.S. Attorney should go back to his canons, and conduct himself in an ethical and fair manner.

13 . The U.S. Attorney wants it both ways; he wants to allow the years of negative reporting about us, yet disallow a small bit of possibly positive reporting about two heads-up Americans. (How does he know it would be positive? To date any interview with mainstream media has been turned around by the media to be negative and sensational . We have never been able to get positive legitimate reporting with them) . Why do you all fear the truth?

14. The U.S. Attorney states that "although litigants do not surrender their first amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may be subordinate to other interests that arise" (emphasis added). What interests could supersede the God-given rights protected by the constitution? Could it possibly be that the interests that are subordinating a right is a private Illuminated agenda of a government out of control? Of course it is!

15 . The U.S . Attorney mentions that a fair trial must be maintained at all costs ; we have yet to see anything close to a fair trial in our cases .

16. The U.S. Attorney must be aware, as he has received several Affidavits of Truth, and has not responded to a single one to date, that there is no way that we could anticipate a fair trial . An affidavit not rebutted stands as truth, yet no rebuttals have been forthcoming ; he is now in dishonor and in default, and by law must depart, yet he has been allowed by the court to continue. Collusion!

17. The U.S. Attorney claims that he and the courts are trying "to protect the interests of the public through the fair administration of criminal justice ." We claim that the public has not been damaged, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has not been damaged, as there is no law requiring us to pay an income tax on our earnings, from which these allegations arise . The best way to protect the interests of the public is to publicize the truth; this is supposed to be the main goal of the U.S . Attorney's office and the court. But that is not the case, is it?

18. The U.S. Attorney refers to pre-trial publicity ; so far any such publicity we have seen has been in the Concord Monitor, the Union Leader, and WMUR-TV, stemming from the U.S . Attorney's office. Is this not tainting? Collusion!

19. The U.S. Attorney should be aware in regards to the jury venire as being biased by one party or another, that the U .S. Attorney absolutely biased the Grand Jury and the judges bias the petit jury in any way they decide.

20. Justice Edna Jones of the third circuit appellate court stated, in a presentation to the students at Harvard Law School, that we no longer have any courts ; they are all corrupt . Thus we have no confidence or faith in this court or the U . S . Attorney's office/DOJ any longer .

21 . As the U .S. Attorney is aware of the business that is being orchestrated by the courts/U.S. Attorney/county attorney, underwritten by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/UBS FINANCIAL GROUP by the issuance of bonds with each civil and criminal case, he can not deny that the courts et al are operating in commerce. Thus all cases, as so stated in 27CFR72.11, are commercial crimes. Therefore, all fall under Uniform Commercial Code. Collusion !

22. The U.S . Attorney is aware that all juries must be fully informed ; however, the judges continuously mis-inform the jurors as to what their powers are . The jury is to decide on both facts and law; the judge tells the jury that they will find on fact and he will find on law. He is not supposed to enter the case ; he is merely there as an arbiter . The judge's manual of jury instructions states that the judge is not to tell the jurors that they have the power to judge the law; however, the judges go too far by telling the jurors that they cannot judge the law. Collusion!

23 . The U .S. Attorney is aware that Mr . Muirhead cannot enter the "defendant's" box, or the prosecutor's; however, Magistrate Muirhead took the defendants' position, he pled "not guilty." Thus Mr. Muirhead is the responsible party to your claim of arraignment. Collusion!

24 . The U .S . Attorney should be aware that we reluctantly submit to doing any kind of interview with any media, as they have almost always taken everything we say out of context in order to show us in the worst possible light - sensationalism sells .

25 . The U.S . Attorney is aware that "defendants" are fictional STRAWMAN by the court 's own description, and cannot speak or do anything else in a real world . He uses the word defendant' like confetti. His legal fiction interpretation of who we are is not appreciated, is noted, and is also copyrighted .

26 . To quote Martin Luther, "Every institution in which men are not unceasingly occupied with the word of God, must become corrupt ." God has not been in these courtrooms for many years. (Note missing Bible, which was the reason for standing when the judge entered the courtroom with the Bible under his arm.)

27 . The U .S. Attorney's.objection should be denied .

28. God bless .

By Order of: EDWARD BROWN© By Order of. ELAINE BROWN©
By: Edward-LewisBrownC, Creditor By : Elaine-Alice :Brown©, Creditor
Holder-in-due-Course with Holder-in-due-Course with
unlimited commercial liability unlimited commercial liability

[Nikki]

Frivolous. Ignored.

[Arthur Rubin]

Here's the latest court filing, including a reference to the Illuminati.

May 27, 2009 ...

20. Justice Edna Jones of the third circuit appellate court stated, in a presentation to the students at Harvard Law School, that we no longer have any courts ; they are all corrupt . Thus we have no confidence or faith in this court or the U . S . Attorney's office/DOJ any longer .

I know most of this is nonsense, but this one is checkable nonsense. Anyone know a "Justice Edna Jones"?