Brown supporter Bob Wolffe

[wserra]

Update from Wolffe's wife, Valeri:

He has accepted a plea bargain. That means that as soon as the next hearing can be arranged, he might just walk out.

The bad news about that is that he will plea to a felony charge and he will lose his rights. I know he is doing this for me.

He isn’t being indicted for conspiracy (thank God), but it is because they don’t have anything there to charge him.

Guess Valeri wasn't quite accurate in her description of events...

Brown enabler indicted
2 conspiracy counts are added to ally's list

IPOF, Valeri may have been partially accurate. This is speculation, but I've certainly seen similar things happen.

It may well be that the govt made Wolffe an offer: plead to the single count with which we have charged you or we will supersede with the heavy stuff. The govt does make offers like that - it cuts a relatively minor player out of the picture early, and focusses the prosecution on those about whom the govt cares more.

If this is what happened, Wolffe would have to be a complete idiot to refuse. (Hmm - what else would he have to be?) I'm sure his lawyer would have told him that, and perhaps told Valeri that he was considering it. There is actually a term of art for nitwits who don't take advantage of such offers to cut their losses - "inmates".

[LPC]

n a 35-page court filing penned by Wolffe this week, he acknowledged that he and his wife had been overnight guests at the property, that they loaned the car, that he videotaped U.S. marshals, carried a gun on the property, and delivered supplies to the couple. In the filing, which was rejected by the judge because it did not come from Wolffe's attorney, Wolffe argues that none of these actions constitute crimes.

His filings weren't accepted, but you can bet they will be used against him as admissions--

Technical quibble, and correct me if I'm wrong:

Wolffe's 35-page thing (I hesitate to call it a pleading) was accepted by the clerk and docketed, but was later "struck" by the judge.

My understanding is that the judge's order to strike does not mean that the document is deleted or destroyed; it is still in the court's file. The order to strike only means that the "thing" will not be considered as a pleading by the court. But, as you point out, that doesn't mean that the document doesn't exist and can't be used for other purposes, such as a written admission against penal interest.

It's analogous to what happens when a lawyer in court starts to say something and then tells the reporter "strike that." The reporter doesn't actually strike anything, but just records the words "strike that" and continue to record what the lawyer says. What the lawyer said before is still in the record, but is usually not given any further consideration. Similarly, the judge's order to "strike" doesn't actually delete anything, but it is generally understood that the thing struck is not given further consideration as a pleading. But that doesn't mean that it can't be given consideration as something other than a pleading.

[Nikki]

In my experience, during courtroom testimony, at least, 'stricken' text lives only in the reporter's notes.

The transcript does not contain either the stricken remarks or the command to strike them.

Only if one of the parties desires to have the text and the act of striking it preserved to the record (most likely for appellate consideration) will the full text remain in the official record.

I welcome correction, if applicable. Perhaps Judge Bean?

[wserra]

There are two different senses of the word "record" in play here. In every court in which I've practiced, nothing is physically removed from a transcript of testimony. The court's order to strike will be part of the record, and anything stricken will not be (for example) reread to the jury during deliberations should they request it. In a trial I finished a couple of weeks ago, on my motion a witness' entire testimony was stricken - but it is still in the trial record. How else could the judge's order to strike it be reviewed? (Note to my opponent in the unlikely event he is reading this: Don't bother. It was clearly correct.)

The other sense is a record on appeal. From time to time, a party to an appeal will move to strike parts of a record that the other side prepared, usually on the ground that it wasn't before the trial court. If such a motion is granted, the offending material will be physically redacted from the appellate record.

[Joey Smith]

Striking a pleading simply means that the document becomes inoperative in the sense that it has been deemed to carry no legal significance. The document henceforth cannot be used for record or notice purposes, and opposing parties are relieved from any requirements to respond to it.

Physically, the document stays in the file, is listed on the docket sheet, and can be used just like any other non-filed document, i.e., as admissions against interest or whatever.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Physically, the document stays in the file, is listed on the docket sheet, and can be used just like any other non-filed document, i.e., as admissions against interest or whatever.

The New Hampshire Federal Court uses the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system. As I understand things, it is almost impossible to "remove" an item from the ECF system. I suspect that if you went on pacer, you could still download the original filing that has been "stricken".

[webhick]

He has accepted a plea bargain. That means that as soon as the next hearing can be arranged, he might just walk out.

The Illuminati assure you that Bob will "walk out", but it won't be your Bob. On the very first night, we removed Bob's brain, which is now sitting in a jar on my nightstand. I dressed it up in a yellow sundress, Farrah Fawcett wig, and a pair of really cute strappy heels. It looks quite pleased with itself, but it really needs to shave its legs. Anyway, with Bob's head literally empty, we had to make a quick decision on what to replace his brain with. And then we had an epiphany - the kamikaze squirrel that ran into my Honda Fit last September! The body was pretty flat, so we were keeping the brain alive. He was doing really great and almost finished that Sudoku book I gave him in January.

Naturally, the squirrel brain wasn't quite large enough to fill the empty cavity where Bob's brain used to be, so we filled it with those environmentally friendly packing peanuts. And then we closed up with some duct tape. Oddly enough, no one noticed.

The bad news about that is that he will plea to a felony charge and he will lose his rights. I know he is doing this for me.

We have it on good authority that Bob is doing this for himself. Not great authority, mind you, since we had to bribe his cell mate with a pack of cigarettes and it's a known fact that he's likely to say almost anything for a pack of smokes. Prison is no vacation, sweetheart (unless you're Elaine). Bob's probably only thinking about you in the shower, and outside the shower he's trying not to piss off the wrong people. Actually, he may not even be thinking about you in the shower, since that would draw the wrong kind of attention. Like wearing a micro-mini and a see-through top in a bad part of town.

That bothers me alot and I’m thinking seriously about calling the Vermont Law school and see if I can get consultation.

That's an excellent idea. I'm sure that they're experts in NH Law at the VT Legal Clinics. (Okay, they probably know something about it, but seriously, ask for advice in the right state for crying out loud)

I believe that he is innocent and he can actually walk out of there innocent – but he will have to stay there a few months longer.

If he's charged with urinating on the White House lawn, sure, he's innocent. Or...is he? I saw a guy out there at 2AM a couple of months back when I was there for a Telekinesis & Oatmeal Preparation Seminar. Kinda looked like Bob. But who knows? Maybe it was his drunken doppelgänger which we put into circulation last year. He mysteriously disappeared in Minnesota. No need to call me if you find him, we've already had our fun.

My sisters can .. well you know, we don’t need to get into that.

Actually, we do now. This is an internet posting. If you didn't want to get into it, you shouldn't have brought the subject up.

Can they....rub strawberry jello on white poodles and run fully clothed through the nearest cow pasture?
Can they....take 659 dead flies, line them up on a board in military formation and gently tap one end of the board to make the flies look like they're marching in unison and falling over drunk?

Bob is a man who won’t enjoy reporting to a probation officer, peeing in a cup, or not having his guns (he loves his guns), or not exercising his right to vote.

No, Bob is a squirrel who will absolutely adore reporting to a probation officer because they have buckets of candy in their desk and they're always jittery from the caffeine and sugar so they're just like squirrels! And, if you make cute squirrel faces, they'll give you some candy. And then you can run away, stash the candy and come back for more.
Bob the squirrel does not care about peeing in cups. When he comes home, you will be lucky if you can make him urinate consistently in the bathroom, much less near the toilet. I'm not sure if that's any different that the previous Bob, but you should probably pick up some puppy-pads just in case.
Bob the squirrel does not even like guns. This has to do with rednecks taking potshots at him and his family when he was little.
Bob the squirrel cares not for voting. Unless it has to do with squirrel extermination, and then he will care.

I am going to ask him what he wants most today when I talk to him on the phone.

Nuts. He wants nuts. Send nuts.

I know he is doing this for me.
[..snip..]
My friends here have already told me that they will help me if Bob feels like fighting.
[..snip..]
I’m sure his public defender is anxious for him to sign on the line to admit to guilt. I cannot have that.
[..snip..]
If Bob is willing to sit it out, I will not cry and display any suffering to him while he is there.
[..snip..]
So there, what do you think of that?

I think you think this is all about you.

[Imalawman]

Ah, another Webhick literary masterpiece..... it kind of puts the right perspective on tax protesters' ramblings.

[webhick]

it kind of puts the right perspective on tax protesters' ramblings.

Simply not possible.

[Demosthenes]

New docket entries:

11/26/2007 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Robert Wolffe: Change of Plea Hearing set for 12/7/2007 01:30 PM before Chief Judge George Z. Singal at the Rudman Courthouse, Concord, NH. (dae) (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/27/2007 62 Arrest Warrant Returned Executed on 11/20/07 as to Robert Wolffe. (mxm) (Entered: 11/29/2007)

12/05/2007 68 NOTICE of Termination of Attorney by Robert Wolffe. (jar) (Entered: 12/05/2007)

12/05/2007 69 NOTICE of Error; Demand for Judicial Review and Relief From Grand Jury Indictment for Fraud as Presented by Affidavit of Robert Arthur Wolffe by Robert Wolffe. (jar) (Entered: 12/05/2007)

[Demosthenes]

Just pathetic:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wolffe68.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wolffe69.pdf

[Demosthenes]

Be sure to compare that first Wolffe document (#68) with this one dated almost two years earlier.

http://www.myredemption.net/files/3-26- ... 0final.doc

[Dezcad]

Just pathetic:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wolffe68.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wolffe69.pdf

Did you notice that the Notice of Termination of Attorney has a Certificate of Service dated 11/10/07 yet the Certificate of Service for the Notice of Error is dated 12/05/07 even though both are date stamped 12/05/07?

The interesting part is that the Change of Plea Notice of Hearing was dated 11/26/07 even though Bob certified that he mailed the Notice of Termination of Attorney prior to that but waited to actually file it right before the Plea Hearing. What changed?

[grixit]

Just pathetic:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wolffe68.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wolffe69.pdf

The clerk should have bounced it with the notation: REJECTED, THIS VENUE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY "BANKRUPT LEGAL FICTION" OR "A/K/A OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND".

[Dr. Caligari]

Now I'm totally confused. Is he changing his plea or not?

[.]

It would appear that he's had a change of heart.

Either that, or another bout of insanity.

[wserra]

It would appear that he's had a change of heart.

But what he needs is a change of brain.

[jg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsj4jKkXoc
The Four Freshmen - If I Only Had A Brain

[The Observer]

But look on the bright side - those documents are just teeming with new titles that we can confrim on new Quatloosians. You have to admit, "International Monetary Fund Lackey" has a certain ring to it.

[.]

Perhaps the fiction has taken charge of his defense. Or, maybe he's become a figment of his own overactive imagination and none of this is really happening.

Any way you slice it, I suspect his taxpayer-paid lawyer is happy to be on his way out of TP-land.