Browns agree to be represented by their attorneys

[Demosthenes]

Interesting bit: Danny Riley is on the government's witness list.

[.]

Looks like Ed's only (unsworn) "testimony" may be via old audio and video. And perhaps outbursts at trial. Assuming he deigns to show up.

Back-door introduction of the idea that he's a totally incompetent nut-bag deserving of sympathy? Grasping at the only available straw? Good trial strategy and/or the only trial strategy?

[wserra]

How do you un-ring the bell of gibberish for a client?

In a Cheek context, you don't - you ring it some more. "I know this sounds crazy to you, folks, but they really believe it. Just like that stuff about taxes."

Unfortunately for them, the present charges don't contain a "willfulness" element.

[wserra]

While the chance of either of them being put on to testify in their own defense has to be approximately zero, it sure could make for some interesting cross.

Were I Elaine's lawyer, I would be seriously considering putting her on, and would be having almost daily "come to Jesus" sessions with her. Of course, it requires her cooperation.

It's not this case, but every now and then a defense lawyer finds him/herself in the strange position of not caring what the client says. As a colleague of mine advised in such a situation, "Slap an exhibit tag on him and put him up there." More than that is unfortunately privileged, but it's a great story.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Randy Weaver is on Ed's witness list. It might be worth showing up to see that. Particularly the cross examination.

Where is Joe Haas on the witness list for Ed? Isn't he needed to testify about the lack of jurisdiction of the Court?

[Dezcad]

How do you un-ring the bell of gibberish for a client?

In a Cheek context, you don't - you ring it some more. "I know this sounds crazy to you, folks, but they really believe it. Just like that stuff about taxes."

Unfortunately for them, the present charges don't contain a "willfulness" element.

But isn't that what Elaine's stand-by counsel is arguing?

Counts One, Two, and Eleven allege that Elaine Brown acted “knowingly and willfully.”
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has defined willfulness to mean “a voluntary, intentional
violation of a known legal duty.” United States v. Griffin, 524 F.3d 71, 77 (1st Cir. 2008)
(quotations omitted). Evidence that Elaine Brown believed she was under no duty to submit to
arrest in her home nor to be present at her sentencing is material and admissible as to Counts
One, Two, and Eleven, as well as to Count Eight, which alleges that she obstructed justice by
acting to impede the arrest of herself and Edward Brown.

from 06/20/2009 124 OBJECTION by Elaine Brown re 123 MOTION in Limine. (Lange, Bjorn) (Entered: 06/20/2009)
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_124.pdf

[wserra]

But isn't that what Elaine's stand-by counsel is arguing?

Yes, but in the context of the Brown charges I think he's wrong. Any port in a storm, but wrong. When I wrote that willfulness isn't an element of these charges, I wrote too generally. I should have said that Cheek willfulness isn't an element. Without writing a law review note, the Supreme Court has distinguished general "willfulness" - which is an element of every conspiracy - from the "willfulness" which is an element of "highly technical statutes that presented the danger of ensnaring individuals engaged in apparently innocent conduct". Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 194 (1998) (refusing to require a Cheek charge in a firearms conspiracy case). As a general rule, the "willfulness" element of a conspiracy simply means "bad purpose" as opposed to innocent conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 (1976). Counts One, Two and Eleven are, respectively, conspiring to obstruct federal officers, conspiring to commit a federal offense, and failing to appear. None of those are "highly technical statutes" so as to warrant a Cheek-Ratzlaf charge.

Not that I wouldn't argue that they are, were I defending the Brown:family nitwits.

[Dezcad]

But isn't that what Elaine's stand-by counsel is arguing?

Yes, but in the context of the Brown charges I think he's wrong. Any port in a storm, but wrong. When I wrote that willfulness isn't an element of these charges, I wrote too generally. I should have said that Cheek willfulness isn't an element. Without writing a law review note, the Supreme Court has distinguished general "willfulness" - which is an element of every conspiracy - from the "willfulness" which is an element of "highly technical statutes that presented the danger of ensnaring individuals engaged in apparently innocent conduct". Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 194 (1998) (refusing to require a Cheek charge in a firearms conspiracy case). As a general rule, the "willfulness" element of a conspiracy simply means "bad purpose" as opposed to innocent conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 (1976). Counts One, Two and Eleven are, respectively, conspiring to obstruct federal officers, conspiring to commit a federal offense, and failing to appear. None of those are "highly technical statutes" so as to warrant a Cheek-Ratzlaf charge.

Not that I wouldn't argue that they are, were I defending the Brown:family nitwits.

Thanks for your take on this, Wes. Even if the defense is able to get a Cheek-Ratzlaf charge to the jury, I would think that the prosecutor could counter with the argument that the Browns' conduct wasn't based on a misunderstanding of the law/conviction but based upon their disagreement with the law/conviction.

Particularly, this statement from Elaine's stand-by counsel:

Elaine Brown believed she was under no duty to submit to arrest in her home nor to be present at her sentencing.

could be countered with that she knew she was under a duty but merely disagreed with the enforcement of that duty in her case.

Anyways, I understand that this is perhaps one of the few avenues available for the defense of the Brown colons.

[fortinbras]

With reference to tax evasion, "willfulness" describes a deliberate decision not to file income tax returns (or not to file usable income tax returns) and/or not to pay the money to the govt. If the defendant is aware that the income tax laws prescribe tax returns and payments, it does not matter if his decision not to comply is based on a belief (no matter how sincere) that the tax laws are somehow invalid, or his desire to create a court case to challenge the tax laws.

This distinguishes a willful failure to comply with the tax laws with one caused by some overwhelming event that makes the non-compliance inadvertant, such as a house fire or a serious illness that prevents or distracts the defendant from compliance.

[Demosthenes]

Elaine Brown believed she was under no duty to submit to arrest in her home nor to be present at her sentencing.

On the radio show after she returned home, Elain expressed guilt because she had give her word to court that she would not go back to Plainfield.

The 38-page "Saga of Ed and Elaine Brown" that they filed in their nonexistent appellate case in May is a must-read too.

April 24, 2007 was the sentencing date. Obviously we chose not to attend the hearing.

[wserra]

Particularly, this statement from Elaine's stand-by counsel:

Elaine Brown believed she was under no duty to submit to arrest in her home nor to be present at her sentencing.

could be countered with that she knew she was under a duty but merely disagreed with the enforcement of that duty in her case.

Anyways, I understand that this is perhaps one of the few avenues available for the defense of the Brown colons.

It's not at all clear to me that this "avenue" is, in fact, available, since Bryan makes it difficult to make a failure to appear into a "highly technical statute[s] that presented the danger of ensnaring individuals engaged in apparently innocent conduct". We'll see what the judge says. Not that I wouldn't argue that it is, were I defending the Brown:family nitwits.

I think I said that before.

[webhick]

In "response" to Scoop's latest story here, Joe Haas announces his refusal to attend the trial and alludes to making money by taking time off from work:

Danny's testimony will "rock the boat" and sink the Feds!
By JosephSHaas on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 13:01

Amendment and "witness" info.

Sorry, I tried to plug in the Art. 95 link to the N.H. Constitution, Part Second in "** The Mutual Aid" paragraph but that I was over the word limit. Here it is now: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

And to explain my next claim to the State Board of Claims, it's like getting into a car KNOWing that the driver or chauffeur behind the wheel is drunk or on drugs. Would you put your life at risk in such a case? Of course not!

The same goes for the judge of this case, on "the bench" they call it. Would you enter his courtroom KNOWing that he knows he has no jurisdictional authority as against the law? but does not care! and chance not being found in "contempt of court" / his court? that is actually in contempt of the constitution.! He can put you in prison for up to six (6) months is a "petty" offense they call it by case-law, withOUT a trial by jury!

And so I REFUSE to enter his courtHOUSE, while he is there dishing out in-justice! My right to attend a "public trial" is enhanced by the Ninth Amendment of the right to attend a LAWful public trial, not some "Kangaroo Court"!

Because the governor has FAILed to assure me that they are indeed operating over there legally and by the law, I will NOT set foot on their federal turf UNLESS they, the creature of our creator state of 13 at the time, has complied with the contract: 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution of to get our "Consent" BEFORE they start operating. Call it not medical mal-practice, but legal MAL-practice!

You too should assert these rights* and make $money! A "Reward" for doing so to take time off from work to do what's right. As even that time donated is a factor for measuring damages according to the new Chairman Mark Howard, Esquire appointed by the N.H. Supreme Court in an ORDER he sent me on my way to their next quarterly meeting on Sept. __, 2009. On Monday at 12:01 p.m. I'll be filing my first of #__ claims with the N.H. Secretary of State, because legal remedies to be free, complete and prompt, as in withOUT delay, delay = postpone, post = after, and pone = meal, and so by the noontime and dinner time respectfully for the theft of my rights to attend what are supposed to be these LAWful morning and afternoon sessions of this public trial! To check in with the Secretary of State twice a day for to see if the Feds have taken their medicine. (;-) If not, then to stay away from them about to go berserk!

* Rights, as in what Danny was asserting as an "inhabitant" too is what he ought to title himself when he speaks the truth from the witness stand, as he asserted this claim for such in Strafford County Superior Court in Dover, but that Judge Steven Houran, former Assistant Attorney General did NOT give him his "complete" legal remedy as by to hear with his ears what he did write in his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and so withOUT a hearing for a re-hearing to occur, the N.H. Supreme Court took the case anyway so that the Feds could PULL it to them, when by the law, the case MUST as in "shall" only be PUSHed to there by the Defendant Superintendent, not some Federal Intervenor, but allowed by these Supremes who ought to be impeached too!

Danny disgusted with the so-called Sunshine "Patriots". Where were they to visit him in jail? Or complain to their State Reps to Art. 17 impeach these Supreme Court thieves? for an Article 38 trial in the Senate. See http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html

Even though as a witness FOR the Feds, the Defense has the right to cross-examine, and so yeah! to enter into the federal court his COMPLETE case IN-cluding his Appeals BOTH to the State Supreme Court and still pending to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

He also responds twice to himself with more gibberish.

[LPC]

Joe Haas announces his refusal to attend the trial and alludes to making money by taking time off from work:

Joe Haas works? It never would have occurred to me that there would be any market for ranting and gibberish.

And so I REFUSE to enter his courtHOUSE, while he is there dishing out in-justice! My right to attend a "public trial" is enhanced by the Ninth Amendment of the right to attend a LAWful public trial, not some "Kangaroo Court"!

The Brown trial violates Haas's rights?

It never would have occurred to me that the Constitution gave rights to onlookers.

[Paul]

Even though as a witness FOR the Feds, the Defense has the right to cross-examine, and so yeah! to enter into the federal court his COMPLETE case IN-cluding his Appeals BOTH to the State Supreme Court and still pending to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

So the only defense he can enter is his appeals to the state sc and the 1st circuit?

[LPC]

Even though as a witness FOR the Feds, the Defense has the right to cross-examine, and so yeah! to enter into the federal court his COMPLETE case IN-cluding his Appeals BOTH to the State Supreme Court and still pending to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

So the only defense he can enter is his appeals to the state sc and the 1st circuit?

I went back to try to figure out the context, and "as a witness for the Feds" and "his" both seem to be references to Danny Riley, and not Ed Brown.

[Gregg]

Didn't Crazy Joe get caught trying to take something contraband into the courthouse and get more or less banned from setting foot in the building?

[wserra]

And so I REFUSE to enter his courtHOUSE
...
I will NOT set foot on their federal turf

"I'll miss that guy." - Dr. Peter Venkman

"What a maroon" doesn't seem sufficient. This guy deserves a place of honor in the Maroon Hall of Fame.

[fortinbras]

While the chance of either of them being put on to testify in their own defense has to be approximately zero, it sure could make for some interesting cross.

No sensible lawyer would put either Brown on the witness stand but they seem to insist (off and on) on doing this without lawyers, which pretty much assures that they will both take the stand. Once that happens they're pretty much doomed (as if they weren't otherwise).

[cynicalflyer]

Didn't Crazy Joe get caught trying to take something contraband into the courthouse and get more or less banned from setting foot in the building?

It wasn't only that. There was a letter around here recently here on Quatloos.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4218&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Basically, Joe's posted enough comments, including apparently detailed directions for how Ed & Elaine would be transported from the jail to the courthouse, and tried enough stuff to get on the Marshall's radar, he got banned from even setting foot in the jail to visit Ed, etc.

So, while I don't know he was officially formally banned from the courthouse, I wouldn't be surprise if he was going to get banned from the courtroom and he was told as much.

[Pottapaug1938]

Joe Haas says that he will "check in with the Secretary of State twice a day for to see if the Feds have taken their medicine". I can think of a few medicines for Joe to take, himself....