Contest: Who will be the Brown supporter charged?

Post by **Demosthenes** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:46 pm

Who will be the first Brown supporter charged with assisting a fugitive? Some possible suggestions.

Reno "Mr. 50 Caliber" Gonzalez
Anthony "Just call Me Peace" Sciarrone
Danny "The Dog Walker" Riley
Fred "I've got your Number" Smart
Lauren "I'm a Hippie Flake" Canario
Bob "Look at my Ranger Badge" Wolffe
Rob "I want to Shoot Judges" Jacobs
Bill "Ed's worth more to me Dead" Miller
Jason "Demolition Derby Driver" Gerhard
Bernie "I carry two Guns" Bastian
Joe "Wise up or Die" Haas
Jim "If my RVs rockin, don't come knockin" Hobbs
Shaun "Doing the Liberty Dollar Drop" Kranish
Kat "I'm an airhead" Kanning
Russell "I spent 14 days in jail for no reason" Kanning
Michael "The DOJ is threatening me from Panera Baker" Hampton
David "I like Bleach" Ridley

And many many more

The prize is a nifty Constitution Ranger mousepad!

gezco · Post by **gezco** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:45 pm

I’m thinking Reno “look at how big my gun is” Gonzalez, although, the odds that he gets busted for something unrelated seem pretty good. Has Shaun “I like to show my gun in public” Kranish been to New Hampshire? If he hasn’t, have a decent 1st amendment defense. His legal woes in Illinois may keep him from getting busted for this. Danny “The bong boy dog walker” Riley seems like a good bet too, but they might just bust him on drug charges.

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:04 pm

I think that should be the least of their worries.

If it goes down as some of them claim it will, you can add any number of various charges under 18 USC, i.e., 111 and 1114 (assaulting a Federal officer), 245(b)(1)(C) (forcible interference against a Federal officer), 372 (conspiracy to impede or injure a Federal officer), 2231 (assault or resistance to search).

And of course if their mythological vision of having IRS agents involved in the storming of the castle occurs and they put up any real resistance, there will be 26 USC 7212(a) (assaulting IRS agents) charges.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:46 pm

If anyone in the "compound" fires a single shot, you can add Attempted Murder.

. · Post by . » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:05 pm

The prize is a nifty Constitution Ranger mousepad!

What, no badge?

The real prize is when these morons are taken out and we no longer have to read about this idiocy.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:52 pm

Busted on other charges doesn't count. After all, eleven Brown supporters have been arrested in recent months on non Brown related charges.

Yes, I've had an optical mouse in the past (that is *so* five minutes ago) and now used a laser mouse, but still have to use a mouse pad because my desk has a shiny surface.

The Operative · Post by **The Operative** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:57 pm

My first choice would probably be Danny 'I grabbed my liberty tool' Riley.

As my long-shot pick, it would have to be Michael 'It's not paranoia if they are really watching you' Hampton. He probably won't be anywhere near the place when or if they do eventually arrest the Browns. However, I bet he does something stupid afterward.

Post by **webhick** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:51 pm

Bob Wolffe. Since it'll be easy for the feds to scan each and every package he receives and sends to prove that he's aiding and abetting the Browns. And if he's shipping to an intermediary and that intermediary then ships to the Browns, the feds will have a nice little chain of supporters to follow with minimal work (well, compared to isolating the Browns).

Post by **wserra** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:43 pm

webhick wrote:Bob Wolffe. Since it'll be easy for the feds to scan each and every package he receives and sends to prove that he's aiding and abetting the Browns.

It's not clear to me that that's a crime. Unless it amounts to harboring or concealing, I don't know what crime one commits just by sending stuff ("stuff" obviously not including weapons or contraband) to Mr. and Mrs. Dingbat. Take a look at Chapter 49 of 18 USC, crimes dealing with fugitives. The crimes are: § 1071. Concealing person from arrest, § 1072. Concealing escaped prisoner, § 1073. Flight to avoid prosecution or giving testimony, and § 1074. Flight to avoid prosecution for damaging or destroying any building or other real or personal property. Or Chapter 73 (§§ 1501-1520), obstruction of justice. I don't see anything that applies.

I can't say I have exhaustively researched this, so maybe somebody can cite a crime here.

The Operative · Post by **The Operative** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:54 pm

wserra wrote:It's not clear to me that that's a crime. Unless it amounts to harboring or concealing, I don't know what crime one commits just by sending stuff ("stuff" obviously not including weapons or contraband) to Mr. and Mrs. Dingbat.

I can't say I have exhaustively researched this, so maybe somebody can cite a crime here.

How about USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, § 3 - Accessory after the fact
"Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact."

I think that covers it.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:27 pm

"Anyone rendering assistance aid or comfort to the Browns in their continuing effort to obstruct justice and avoid apprehension maybe be subject to arrest or prosecution and certainly anyone now that they are convicted felons that provides the browns with weapons or ammunition is committing a separate felony," Monier said.

Post by **wserra** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:34 am

The Operative wrote:How about USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, § 3 - Accessory after the fact
"Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact."

I think that covers it.

It's not clear to me that it does. If I call up Ed and tell him to hang in there, can I be prosecuted? In some sense I am clearly "comforting" him, no?

Take a look at the cases under 18 USC 3 - and there are precious few recent ones. The last one in which sufficiency was an issue is United States v. Triplett, 922 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1991). Triplett was in fact convicted of aiding and abetting the original crime as well, so his participation was not much of an issue. The Fifth Circuit's summary of the evidence on the accessory count:

The evidence showed that Triplett admitted to his bondsman that he knew Snyder had set the fire. Triplett also told the police that someone else had brought chemicals over to the apartment the day before the fire, yet he told his bondsman that Snyder had taken the chemicals over to the apartment the night before the fire. Triplett admitted that they had taken the jewelry from the apartment. In addition, Triplett tried to aid Snyder in other ways. Triplett and Snyder both lied to the police as to their identities when questioned. Triplett was with Snyder when he hid Jenny's jewelry under the seat of the police car. Triplett and Snyder went to Tracy Williams's apartment shortly after the fire to trade jewelry (some of which was Jenny's) for drugs, and Triplett asked Williams not to tell anyone that they had been there. The night after the fire Triplett paid for the motel room in which he and Snyder stayed. We find that the totality of the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that Triplett was an accessory after the fact.

The other cases are little different, and their proof far exceeds openly bringing food to the Bozos.

Maybe that's why Monier said "may be".

"Common-law" type crimes like accessory after the fact tend to be superseded in application by more specific ones, such as those directed to harboring a fugitive - which Triplett in fact did. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not that clear.

The Operative · Post by **The Operative** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:26 am

wserra wrote: "Common-law" type crimes like accessory after the fact tend to be superseded in application by more specific ones, such as those directed to harboring a fugitive - which Triplett in fact did. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not that clear.

I agree that it is not completely clear. I do believe, in my uneducated opinion, that the statute does cover the type of aid that is happening in this situation. Some of the 'aid' might be so small that they might not even bother charging some of these people.

However, if they do charge someone and they do charge them under the statute I cited, there may be an additional hurdle for the prosecution. The wording of the statute "knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed", might even leave open the possibility of a Cheek type defense. I can truly imagine whoever gets charged telling the court that they didn't believe the Browns broke the law so they didn't know that an offense against the United States had been committed. Sounds stupid, I know, but it just might work.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on T.V.

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:18 pm

Whether or not they knew/believed the tax law under which the Browns were convicted did exist, they really can't plead that they didn't know the Browns were (and probably to this date, still are

) Federal fugitives.

Post by **wserra** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:56 pm

I agree with Judge Bean. The bigger hurdle, IMHO, would be to show the specific intent "in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension". The more ordinary the aid, the more difficult this element.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:07 pm

wserra wrote:I agree with Judge Bean. The bigger hurdle, IMHO, would be to show the specific intent "in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension". The more ordinary the aid, the more difficult this element.

Would you view a statement such as this as meeting the intent element?

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Hello everyone...

For those that do not know me, I am Cirino Gonzalez; aka Reno.

I am the manager for this sits e that was created by Anthony. I blog on here being that I stay with Ed and Elaine. I am volunteer security for them and their friends here...

Post by **wserra** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:13 pm

Why, he obviously means web site security. You know, firewalls, hackers, DOS attacks, etc.

Answer to your (presumably rhetorical) question: yes. What a maroon.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:27 pm

The people who have provided material support to the Browns (and by that I mean doing way more than bringing food or attending a concert) have been extremely vocal (aka stupid) about their activities. Proving that they know the Browns are evading arrest is a slam dunk, and showing that their intent is to provide material support so that known fugitives can evade arrest is almost as simple.

Ironically, it is the support of strangers who are looking for self promotion that will likely result in the Browns being killed.

* Ed made a serious threat of doing an armed standoff a couple of year ago but caved in at the last minute and paid his property taxes.

* Ed and Elaine have four children, none of whom support their stand, and at least one of whom is very angry at the gurus taking the Brown's money during this crisis.

* Elaine's brother is a retired police officer and he has begged her to turn herself in and has offered to fly in to assist with a surrender.

Post by **webhick** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:28 pm

Volunteer....You know, the labor board might have an issue with this.

You see, it is illegal in the state of NH for a for-profit business to have volunteers. Elaine is now running her dental practice out of her home. Reno is "volunteering" security for the building - which now includes the dental practice and others are "volunteering" time by running errands. One could argue that their free room & board constitutes them as being employees (and hence, not volunteers), but I doubt that if you add up the hours that they're making over minimum wage.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:16 pm

Demosthenes wrote:The people who have provided material support to the Browns (and by that I mean doing way more than bringing food or attending a concert) have been extremely vocal (aka stupid) about their activities. Proving that they know the Browns are evading arrest is a slam dunk, and showing that their intent is to provide material support so that known fugitives can evade arrest is almost as simple.

Ironically, it is the support of strangers who are looking for self promotion that will likely result in the Browns being killed.

* Ed made a serious threat of doing an armed standoff a couple of year ago but caved in at the last minute and paid his property taxes.

* Ed and Elaine have four children, none of whom support their stand, and at least one of whom is very angry at the gurus taking the Brown's money during this crisis.

* Elaine's brother is a retired police officer and he has begged her to turn herself in and has offered to fly in to assist with a surrender.

I thought she was staying with her son who cut off the bracelet and drove her back to the fortress.