Latest on the :Brown Appeal

[wserra]

I vaguely recalled that the appellants' briefs were due sometime recently, so I checked the First Circuit docket. I was right - appellants' briefs had been due the end of September, but the :Browns filed a consent motion to expand their time. Briefs are now due November 12. Ed's lawyer is one Dean Stowers of West Des Moines, IA.

I wasn't sure if I had heard of the guy, but thought I'd check him out due to a nitwit from New Hampshire having a lawyer from Iowa. Bottom line: Ed's got a winner here, folks. I won't even try to characterize it; read it for yourselves.

And the guy looks like Ricky Ricardo.

[The Observer]

What are the odds of this lawyer even being available for the Browns, given his own legal problems?

[grixit]

Um, how can he get um, forget the exact latin, "for this place" status when it appears he could be the subject of disciplinary action in his own state. In fact, if it is known that he broke a court seal and then tried to use the information for blackmail, why hasn't it happened already?

[LPC]

I wasn't sure if I had heard of the guy, but thought I'd check him out due to a nitwit from New Hampshire having a lawyer from Iowa.

I wondered the same thing.

Bottom line: Ed's got a winner here, folks. I won't even try to characterize it; read it for yourselves.

Unbelievable. I'd compare it to a daytime soap opera but that would be elevating the soap operas.

Parts of the account aren't even comprehensible. Is a corporation really responsible for the actions of an executive who is divorcing his wife who is also an employee?

And why is Stowers in contempt because his estranged wife's lawyers gave him documents that she was supposed to give to their employer?

It's all incredibly convoluted.

[wserra]

Well, Ed has filed his brief. It's 89 pages. FRAP 32 limits principal briefs to 30 pages, and I don't see a motion in the docket for permission to file an overlength brief. The deadline for both Browns was November 12, and it appears that Elaine has not yet filed. She is represented, so I don't get this. Even an Anders situation requires a brief, and a motion to be relieved.

Anyway, Ed's lawyer has briefed four issues:

Brown first argues that the District Court erred in finding Defendant competent sua sponte. Second, Defendant argues that the District Court erred in its denial of Brown’s defense relating to the willfulness and criminal intent elements of the charged crimes. Third, Brown argues that the Court erred in sustaining several of the Government’s hearsay objections even though the particular statements were not offered for their truth. Lastly, Edward Brown argues that District Court intruded on the province of the jury when it denied the admission of evidence because the Court believed it was “unreliable” and “selfserving”.

I only have time to comment on the first, which I choose because it's the only one that's, well, funny.

Ed's lawyer claims that, before finding Ed competent, the Court should have ordered an evaluation and conducted a hearing. So what's the prejudice? Well, Stowers argues that the record shows that Ed is obviously an incompetent wacko:

Brown’s clearly nonsensical answer
...
Brown also displayed his complete inability to comprehend the consequences facing him during his arraignment
...
From Brown’s five billion dollar bribe offer, his incoherent response at the Status Conference, and his statement that “I don’t know what it all means” the Court somehow came to the conclusion that Brown understood the nature of the consequences he could be facing.
...
Not only did Brown explicitly state he was “ignorant about procedure”, he then proved as much during his arraignment, stating:

This is nothing but a commercial court. You know that. There’s a day bond, a farmer’s bond, and a payment bond tax in every one of these cases and every one of these rumors. That’s a fact of the record as well. It’s one of the biggest businesses in this country and one of the most successful that’s been going on. You know that, too, sir . . . .
Anyway, I will accept for value without fear of levity Halstrom resolution 172 (ph.) of June 5th, 1933, and I will supply this Court with five billion dollars to cover any and all costs up to.

...
Most of Brown’s responses to the Court’s inquiries are literally meaningless to the point of requiring the Court to re-ask almost every question posed to him. Even if the Court took Brown at his word that he had “studied” the law and had “read” about the law, the content of his responses to very simple questions clearly illustrated a complete lack of understanding of the potential consequences he was facing.
...
In reality, the only thing Brown’s “motions” illustrate is that he knows who to give papers to in order that they be delivered to the clerk of court. Brown understands the process of filing motions no more than “the man in the Chinese room” understands Chinese.

The District Court essentially found that all of this showed, not that Ed was incompetent, but that he was a jerk. Still, I think that Stowers has a point.

I wonder what Ed thinks of the fact that his lawyer says he's a moron.

[Paul]

I wonder what Ed thinks of the fact that his lawyer says he's a moron.

Depends on whether anyone will read the brief to him.

[notorial dissent]

OK, I'm beginning to get confused here. Don't I remember that Ed & Elaine fired their attorneys from the first trial and then had stand by counsel appointed or some such, but that most of what was filed was genuine Ed bilge?

So is this guy another court appointed attorney taking the opposite approach to try and get them off? The other thing I am wondering is how long this will last when Ed figures out that his current attorney is portraying him as a delusional old coot?

I just see some issues coming up a little further down the road.

[Gregg]

Normally, I'd read that and say to myself "Well, Ed must have been locked in a little room when they were writing that, no way he'll go along with it"

And then it occurred to me, Ed is locked up in a little tiny room.

[Cathulhu]

Well, Ed is a delusional old coot. But when he spends his free time building booby traps and inciting violence, he's a delusional old coot who definitely should be locked up.

[notorial dissent]

True enough, I am just wondering if he actually knows what this guy is doing, since I can't imagine he would go along with admitting he was delusional, I say this in the sense of delusional but competent. I personally think he is crazier'n a box of bedbugs, but I also think he knows exactly what he was doing, and so despite being delusional he knew what he was doing the whole time, and is wholly, soley, and completely responsible for everything he did.

Of course the fact that the appeal was filed way late, and way too long may make the whole thing moot anyway. I would suspect that the appeals court's patience is wearing quite thin about now.

[wserra]

Of course the fact that the appeal was filed way late,

Ed's brief was filed timely - due 11-12-10, filed 11-12-10. It was Elaine's brief that had not yet been filed. However, checking the docket just now, I see that Elaine's lawyer had moved for a further extension, and filed it in the wrong docket. The clerk corrected that error in the last couple of days, and the Court gave her a final extension until December 10.

and way too long

That is true. More than double.

[notorial dissent]

My misunderstanding then. Trying to make up in verbosity what it lacks in substance usually doesn't go far.

[Dezcad]

Of course the fact that the appeal was filed way late,

Ed's brief was filed timely - due 11-12-10, filed 11-12-10. It was Elaine's brief that had not yet been filed. However, checking the docket just now, I see that Elaine's lawyer had moved for a further extension, and filed it in the wrong docket. The clerk corrected that error in the last couple of days, and the Court gave her a final extension until December 10.

and way too long

That is true. More than double.

Doesn't the brief comply with FRAP 37 (a)(7)(B) and (C) (since it is less than 14,000 words and has a Certificate of Compliance) and therefore not subject to the 30 page limitation?

37(a) (7) Length.

(A) Page limitation.

A principal brief may not exceed 30 pages, or a reply brief 15 pages, unless it complies with Rule 32(a)(7)(B) and (C).

(B) Type-volume limitation.

(i) A principal brief is acceptable if:

* it contains no more than 14,000 words; or
* it uses a monospaced face and containers no more than 1,300 lines of text

(ii) A reply brief is acceptable if it contains no more than half of the type volume specified in Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(i).

(iii) Headings, footnotes, and quotations count toward the word and line limitations. The corporate disclosure statement, table of contents, table of citations, statement with respect to oral argument, any addendum containing statutes, rules or regulations, and any certificates of counsel do not count toward the limitation.

(C) Certificate of compliance.

(i) A brief submitted under Rules 28.1(e)(2) or 32(a)(7)(B) must include a certificate by the attorney, or an unrepresented party, that the brief complies with the type-volume limitation. The person preparing the certificate may rely on the word or line count of the word-processing system used to prepare the brief. The certificate must state either:

* the number of words in the brief; or
* the number of lines of monospaced type in the brief.

(ii) Form 6 in the Appendix of Forms is a suggested form of a certificate of compliance. Use of Form 6 must be regarded as sufficient to meet the requirements of Rules 28.1(e)(3) and 32(a)(7)(C)(i).

[wserra]

Doesn't the brief comply with FRAP 37 (a)(7)(B) and (C) (since it is less than 14,000 words and has a Certificate of Compliance) and therefore not subject to the 30 page limitation?

I don't think so. Caveat: although I have done a fair number of federal appeals, I am far more a trial lawyer than an appellate litigator.

While Stowers has filed a Certificate of Compliance which states that the brief contains fewer than 14,000 words, he has included a lengthy section which he calls an "Addendum". That "Addendum" contains transcripts and orders. The "Addendum" contemplated by Rule 37(a)(7)(B)(iii) includes "statutes, rules or regulations, and any certificates of counsel", not transcript excerpts and court documents. Stowers' "Addendum" should be part of the record on appeal. If in the brief, the things it contains must be included in the word count, as "quotations". Counting them, the brief is far more than 14,000 words.

That's how I see it. Anyone here more familiar with federal appellate practice?

[Demosthenes]

From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)
Date: 11/18/2010 8:55:35 AM
Subject: It appears We May have A Legitimate Counselor.
Message:

"November 17th
Dear wife and friends,

I have just received court transcribtions from the court appointed
attorney out of Iowa to handle the Strawman EDWARD BROWN
for the Appellate re our case. If the Appellate court is righteous
this case is almost over and we will have our day in court after all.
It would be nice to think that there is at least one honest counselor
in America. Stand by! We will see.

His presentment to the court though limited was well written,
and he has shown that the DISTRICT COURT has made some very serious
errors, intentionaly or otherwise.

I'll keep you posted. His name is Sowers.

love you dear wife.
See you all real soon. I pray.
Ed...end "

[The Observer]

I predict that:

(a) the Appellate Court will be far from "righteous",

(b) Ed will be screaming about how the Appellate Court is filled with Masons, Zionists, Papists, etc.,

(c) Ed will proclaim that his court-appointed attorney is a lackey for the ebil gubmint conspiracy,

(d) Ed will make a number of suggestive hints about how paytriots should be making efforts to "eliminate" the people in (b) and (c), and

(e) Ed will file an appeal with the "righteous" Supreme Court.

[Dezcad]

From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)
Date: 11/18/2010 8:55:35 AM
Subject: It appears We May have A Legitimate Counselor.
Message:

"November 17th
Dear wife and friends,

I have just received court transcribtions from the court appointed
attorney out of Iowa to handle the Strawman EDWARD BROWN
for the Appellate re our case. If the Appellate court is righteous
this case is almost over and we will have our day in court after all.
It would be nice to think that there is at least one honest counselor
in America. Stand by! We will see.

His presentment to the court though limited was well written,
and he has shown that the DISTRICT COURT has made some very serious
errors, intentionaly or otherwise.

I'll keep you posted. His name is Sowers.

love you dear wife.
See you all real soon. I pray.
Ed...end "

So Ed agrees that he's incompetent?

[Pottapaug1938]

I predict that:

(a) the Appellate Court will be far from "righteous",

(b) Ed will be screaming about how the Appellate Court is filled with Masons, Zionists, Papists, etc.,

(c) Ed will proclaim that his court-appointed attorney is a lackey for the ebil gubmint conspiracy,

(d) Ed will make a number of suggestive hints about how paytriots should be making efforts to "eliminate" the people in (b) and (c), and

(e) Ed will file an appeal with the "righteous" Supreme Court.

"Righteous". I guess, in :Brownspeak, that means "so brain-dead that the judges will believe the hooey that we use in our pleadings".

[Number Six]

He's lucky he is not a Chinese "dissident", there the smallest petition to government is answered by carting off the person to the nut house, with a daily regimin of injections and electro-shock "therapy".

[wserra]

So Ed agrees that he's incompetent?

No, no, no.

Ed agrees that "the Strawman EDWARD BROWN" is incompetent.