Browns agree to be represented by their attorneys

[Demosthenes]

06/03/2009 99 ORDER denying 94 Motion for Reconsideration of 86 Order denying Motion Requesting an Interview as to Edward Brown (1), Elaine Brown (2). Documents 79-84 and 92 reviewed by the Court. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/03/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_99.pdf

06/03/2009 100 NOTICE to Judge - decisions re trial, et al. by Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement - Elaine Brown, # 2 Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement - Edward Brown)(dae) (Entered: 06/03/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_100-1.pdf The key document
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_100-2.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_100-3.pdf

06/03/2009 101 NOTICE of Refusal of Mail by Edward Brown with handwritten notation - Refused by I/M, along with US Postal notation Return to Sender, etc. re Order 86 by Edward Brown. (dae) (Entered: 06/03/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_101.pdf

[Gregg]

Now wait just a damn minute, they agree to be represented by counsel IF the court agrees to a laundry lisat of the deluded, inclusing that the United States is owned by USB (Paine Webber)
etc...

In fact, they are not agreeing to be represented, they will allow the lawyers to represent the legal fictions they say is not them.

Is there a way the judge can tell them to cut the trash out, you either acccept representation or you don't?

[ClobberroTestii]

Yes, but it involves a white tube sock and a number of bars of soap.......

Right....they can voluntarily accept representation....or else!

[Nikki]

Since the Browns: family(delusional) won't even participate in a rational hearing concerning their desire to represent themselves, much less the consequences of doing so, does this raise some interesting issues for appeal -- assuming the Browns: planet elsewhere later decide to accept the existince of the planet Earth judicial system?

Never mind. Stupid question based on possibility of rational acts on their part.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Is there a way the judge can tell them to cut the trash out, you either acccept representation or you don't?

Yes, but it involves a white tube sock and a number of bars of soap.......

And a blanket party. Don't forget the blanket party.

[wserra]

Never mind. Stupid question based on possibility of rational acts on their part.

Actually, not a stupid question at all. Their only non-frivolous appellate issue so far is whether the trial court had an obligation to pursue the issue of their competency further than it has done. The answer to that is not obvious.

[Nikki]

Never mind. Stupid question based on possibility of rational acts on their part.

Actually, not a stupid question at all. Their only non-frivolous appellate issue so far is whether the trial court had an obligation to pursue the issue of their competency further than it has done. The answer to that is not obvious.

Let's posit that the issue you raised actually is significant reversable error on the part of the trial court.

Let's also posit that the Browns: Family(LaLaLand) haven't abandoned the courtroom and haven't fired their stand-by / backup counsel.

Given all that, they will still refuse to aknowledge that they have been convicted and will not participate in any appeal by the court-appointed counsel -- even if the appeal is a guaranteed slam-dunk.

[fortinbras]

Probably knowing that a court shrink would not categorize them as impaired in any way, and then they'd have to stand trial and take the full penalty, they are (I think) putting on a crazy act to induce the jury and judge to think of them as crazy and treat them accordingly. And/or expecting to go to prison, they hope this crazy act will get them the slightly safer accommodations of the medical wing.

[Demosthenes]

Since the Browns: family(delusional) won't even participate in a rational hearing concerning their desire to represent themselves, much less the consequences of doing so, does this raise some interesting issues for appeal -- assuming the Browns: planet elsewhere later decide to accept the existince of the planet Earth judicial system?

They did participate in the hearing. Read Scoop's story.

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

they are (I think) putting on a crazy act

They aren't that smart.

I think you guys are making this far more complicated than it really is.

It seems that many of you guys feel a lot of sympathy for Elaine. Maybe it's part of that guy instinct to protect women. She appears to be a nice, matronly, educated woman and you've assumed that Ed is the alpha protester who has emotionally battered her into doing stuff she doesn't want to do. I think you're wrong.

I've listened to 100% of their radio shows, watched all of their videos, and read all of their screeds and court filings. Elaine had no problem standing up to Ed and taking over the defense in the tax trial while he hid at home. When they were arrested and separated, it was Elaine who filed dozens of UCC documents, including 1099s against the court, not Ed. In their radio shows and TV interviews, some of the strongest, and clearest, threats of violence came from Elaine. When Ed would start to rant and rave about a legal theory on the radio show, he'd get confused and would have to defer to Elaine's expertise. While Ed may be the blowhard of the team, I think Elaine is the brains. Ed seems to focus on the wild-assed conspiracy theory aspects, but the legal schemes are Elaine's specialty.

Ed and Elaine believe this UCC crap. They've been living and breathing tax denier schemes and conspiracy theories for more than 15 years. They know they will likely lose this trial, but are narcissistic enough to believe that they just might be smart enough to be the first (the "ones") to be able to pull it off and win. They would be willing to martyr themselves for the cause, but support has dwindled to Joe Haas, Bernie Bastion, and maybe three or four others at most. So now, they're facing the rest of their lives apart in prison for nothing and they're freakin' scared.

The trial date is approaching fast, they're already stressed out beyond belief, and the judge's line of questioning (along with the statement from Elaine's kids about Ed's influence over her) probably scared the bejesus out of Elaine earlier this week. They have serious doubts about their course of action (Elaine is not stupid) but don't want to lose the longshot of victory that they think the UCC scheme offers.

They view this new document as a compromise. They desperately need help but are unwilling to write off the case they think they've built. I see this document as an opening bid where the Browns are attempting to hammer out a deal with their lawyers. They've staked their lives and patriot reputations on saying fuck you to the courts -- this attempt to use the lawyers on their own terms helps them save face.

Elaine has worked successfully with her stand-by counsel in the past so there is some trust there. When Ed chickened out of the tax trial in January 2007 and hid at home, Elaine conducted the entire defense with the assistance of Lange. When Elaine was convicted, she and Lange arranged for her to live with her son in Massachusetts pending sentencing. When Elaine was subpoenaed to testify in the Dogwalker trial, she consulted with Lange and took the 5th.

Imagine living for 15 years in euphoria (saying screw you to the tax man while spending tons of non-taxed money) followed by nine months of paranoia and fear (the standoff) followed by 16 months of lonely isolation (prison.) They aren't thinking and plotting their case like lawyers. They're winging it on instinct and their instincts suck.

[wserra]

Maybe it's part of that guy instinct to protect women.

That guy instinct?

You've hinted at this before, Demo, and I defer to someone who has

listened to 100% of their radio shows, watched all of their videos, and read all of their screeds and court filings

because I'd rather pull my own 'ead off. But Lange (who, as you write, has worked with her before and knows her pretty well) appears to believe in the "Ed as Svengali" scenario.

Of course, he could just be trying to set up a defense. It's what I'd do.

[cynicalflyer]

Ed and Elaine believe this UCC crap. They've been living and breathing tax denier schemes and conspiracy theories for more than 15 years...So now, they're facing the rest of their lives apart in prison for nothing and they're freakin' scared.

I think this is the crux of it. Forget so called insanity or that they don't really believe this stuff or are trying to set something else up. These folks are 100% true believers. They are absolutely convinced their version of events/tax code/whatever is 100% correct and everyone else is wrong.

This "modified limited hangout" is designed to hedge bets. I have no doubt, given the gigantic caveats and whatnot in the document that the Browns truly believe they are still right and can back out at any time without damage (nunc pro tunc in ab initio as they put it) to their position that the court's wrong or doesn't really exist, the STRAWMEN are on trial not them, etc. I suspect the son may have put pressure, but keep in mind sonny's taken a copious amount of Kool-Aid himself. Consider the following post from him regarding the Sherry Jackson trial:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 5704646258

I just want to follow up on Donna's request. I can't tell you all how much the actions of the courtroom audience can affect the trial. At Ed and Elaine's trial, some of their supporters got a bit carried away, and I could see a look on the jurors' faces to the effect of, "what a bunch of whackos." Incidentally, it was the only time those twelve sheep formed any exression [sic] other than dumbfoundedness, but that's not the point. To aid Sherry in her credibility, "we" need to look and act like "them." Like my mother and Ed, I'm sure Sherry will sincerely appreciate all the support, but in the courtroom, give them NOTHING to use against you.

Also, post-conviction, rather than getting his mother to file a darn notice of appeal or in anyway press the appeal the trial judge initiated for them, the son decided to gin up some "Petition for redress of grievances" addressed to the Court of Appeals instead.
http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blo ... n-for.html

We hereby petition the United States government, specifically the United States Federal Court of Appeals, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts, to reconsider the appellate denial of Edward Lewis and Elaine Alice Brown. We also petition the United States government to cease the seizure of the Browns’ properties and assets until such time that a fair trial, as defined by the United States Constitution, can be executed.

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blo ... hatch.html

I don't know how she'll [Elaine] feel about my being so vocal these past weeks, but I can't just sit back and let the Feds steal and kidnap people, when all they had to do was open a book and point to a law...We are approaching 700 signatures on the second day of the petition being posted. I would love to deliver a ten-pound package to the courthouse in two weeks containing tens of thousands of signatures.

Everyone, except maybe Ed, is scared or aware of what the heck is pending; the rest of their lives behind bars. Unfortunately, they want to play both sides of the street.

[Demosthenes]

But Lange (who, as you write, has worked with her before and knows her pretty well) appears to believe in the "Ed as Svengali" scenario.

Of course, he could just be trying to set up a defense. It's what I'd do.

It's what I'd do as well. Blaming Ed for everything is a great defense for Elaine, especially in front of jurors. If Lange can just get Elaine in the courtroom and show the jurors that Elaine is a nice, matronly, educated woman with an asshole of a husband.... I don't think it would get Elaine a not-guilty-on-all-charges verdict but it might get her out of that explosives count with the 30-year sentence.

[wserra]

If Lange can just get Elaine in the courtroom and show the jurors that Elaine is a nice, matronly, educated woman with an asshole of a husband

Well, that last part won't be difficult. It's the first part that'd be a stretch, for all the reasons you cited a couple of posts above. Still, it's a whole lot better than the ol' "holder in due course with unlimited commercial liability" defense.

[Demosthenes]

To show that side of Elaine, he'd probably have to put her on the stand which is risky since she's got some pretty obvious temper buttons for the DOJ to push.

[Scoop]

To show that side of Elaine, he'd probably have to put her on the stand which is risky since she's got some pretty obvious temper buttons for the DOJ to push.

She was actually quite good on cross during her tax trial. I would say that the AUSA scored some points, but none having to do with Elaine's temper. She was calm and composed throughout.

[Dezcad]

Of course, he could just be trying to set up a defense. It's what I'd do.

What other options for a real defense does Lange have for Elaine? I don't see any.

[The Observer]

I don't agree with the view that Elaine is the brains in this bunch. If she were the brains, she certainly would have understood a lot sooner that this venture was going to fail and she would have at least stayed at her son's home and separated herself from Ed's crazy antics.

Her return to Ed shows all the classic signs of a person dominated and controlled by their partner, to the point that they will return themselves to a dangerous situation just to be with their partner. I have no idea if physical and/or mental abuse was present in the Brown marriage, but it is apparent that Ed wanted a marriage that put him in charge and making the decisions for Elaine. And she has given every evidence of going along with the relationship and letting Ed call the shots. Anything she has ever said has been in support of Ed and his philosophy. One of the earlier videos I remember was a situation where Ed was spouting off about some issue and she attempted to correct him about some fact . He essentially told her in a dismissive voice that she was wrong and continued to talk over her. Elaine meekly sat back and went back to her submissive role.

Not that any of this creates sympathy in me for Elaine's situation. I do not think she is crazy and I think that she had the ability to wake up and smell the coffee. She made a choice, aware of what the situation was and made her stand with Ed. I believe that she was aware that Ed Brown came with a lot of faults and that these faults were going to affect her life. But she wanted him in her life in spite of these flaws; whether that is due to the fact that Elaine has poor self-esteem or worried about not being able to have a man in her life at her age is unknown. For all we know, Ed may be a just a fantastic lover in the bedroom. But whatever the reason, Elaine made a free choice to go down this road. She should get the book thrown at her.

[Demosthenes]

New story by Scoop:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /906040349

[Pottapaug1938]

From Demosthenes:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /906040349

The best part about the story, by far, is Joe Haas's completely unhinged rant in the comments section after the story. He even makes the :Browns look sane!

[.]

Often court documents spell parties' names using all capital letters, but the January indictment that lays out the pending charges does spell their names using upper- and lowercase letters.

Uh, oh. The sneaky, underhanded, ebil goobermint has defeated their magic words and they don't even know it.