Ed :Brown speaks

[AndyK]

Ed has extremely thin chances of anything happening on appeal.

To quote (probably inaccurately since (1) my memory sucks and (2) I'm too lazy to research back for the exact statement) loosely, a federal agent testified that he has Ed in his sights during one incident and the agent was authorized and ready to pull the trigger as soon as Ed "cheeked" the rifle.

Perhaps the SC ruling might undercut some of Ed's sentence, but there is no way it would support a reversal of his conviction on a laundry list of charges.

Even if Ed wins a new trial, there were many other charges (wait for it) possible such as the 'charges' with which Ed had mined his property.

[tmtoulouse]

Heads up Elaine got her new appeal:

JUDGMENT entered by Sandra L. Lynch, Appellate Judge; Norman H. Stahl, Appellate Judge and Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge: The court's judgment of October 12, 2018, is vacated. Petitioner seeks leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion featuring a challenge to one or more 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Johnson II), and related precedent. See also United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). We conclude only that petitioner has made "a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court." Evans-Garcia v. United States, 744 F.3d 235, 237 (1st Cir. 2014). Petitioner's application is granted, and she is hereby authorized to pursue in the district court a challenge to her § 924(c) conviction(s) based on Johnson II and related precedent. The court expresses no opinion as to the merits of petitioner's claim or as to any other relevant legal issue. The clerk of court will transfer petitioner's application and any amended or supplemental applications filed in this court to the district court for filing as a § 2255 motion. The motion shall be deemed filed in the district court on the date petitioner's original second or successive application was filed in this court. (vln) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

Petitions to vacate snetence have been posted.

My guess is Gerhard Riley and Ed will have similar rulings soon.

Now the real question is, do they have a point?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

A quick reading of that case seems to be down to whether possession of a firearm (as opposed to using it) constitutes a "violent felony" in terms of the Armed Career Criminal Act which imposes mandatory increases in sentences for the third offence. It is a fair point, but the case being relied on seems restricted to whether the enhanced sentence is valid not the underlying prosecution.

We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process

I'm sure a more learned reader will be able to disentangle it.

http://mow.fd.org/sites/mow.fd.org/file ... v%20US.pdf

[Frater I*I]

Heads up Elaine got her new appeal:

JUDGMENT entered by Sandra L. Lynch, Appellate Judge; Norman H. Stahl, Appellate Judge and Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge: The court's judgment of October 12, 2018, is vacated. Petitioner seeks leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion featuring a challenge to one or more 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Johnson II), and related precedent. See also United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). We conclude only that petitioner has made "a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court." Evans-Garcia v. United States, 744 F.3d 235, 237 (1st Cir. 2014). Petitioner's application is granted, and she is hereby authorized to pursue in the district court a challenge to her § 924(c) conviction(s) based on Johnson II and related precedent. The court expresses no opinion as to the merits of petitioner's claim or as to any other relevant legal issue. The clerk of court will transfer petitioner's application and any amended or supplemental applications filed in this court to the district court for filing as a § 2255 motion. The motion shall be deemed filed in the district court on the date petitioner's original second or successive application was filed in this court. (vln) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

Petitions to vacate snetence have been posted.

My guess is Gerhard Riley and Ed will have similar rulings soon.

Now the real question is, do they have a point?

Strangely the US Attorney has not opposed and has motioned to head to resentencing, looks like the Browns, Gerhard, and Riley will be out of prison by years end.

[tmtoulouse]

It sure does look like they are capitulating. What exactly that means for sentencing I don't know but it looks like the US is rolling over.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

What exactly that means for sentencing I don't know but it looks like the US is rolling over.

Did I get this all wrong then? Isn't the "rolling over" simply related to whether the enhanced penalties in the Armed Criminal Career Act could be applied to a person who did not use a weapon in the commission of a subsequent felony but was simply in possession of one. Yes, I do know that in most states (but not all) it is a blanket offence for a felon to be in possession of a gun, but that is separate from the ACCA. On the face of it a reasonable appeal, but happy to be put right.

[The Observer]

...[L]ooks like the Browns, Gerhard, and Riley will be out of prison by years end.

I am having a hard time understanding why Elaine, let alone the others, would be released. Did they not receive a number of years in prison based on other crimes that have not been completed?

[Famspear]

Based partly on my memory and partly on my notes, Ed or Elaine or both were convicted of the following:

(1) knowingly and willfully conspiring, by force, intimidation and threat, to prevent employees of the United States Marshals Service from discharging their official duties in connection with arrest of the Browns, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 372 (both Ed and Elaine?)

(2) conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and subsections (a) and (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (both Ed and Elaine???);

(3) carrying and possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, in violation of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (Ed only, or both of them???) (I think this the conviction that is the subject of the prior posts in this thread);

(4) being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (g) of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Ed only, or both???)

(5) obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503; and failure to appear for sentencing, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (probably both Ed and Elaine);

(6) failure to appear for trial in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Ed only).

[Famspear]

[ . . . ] I do know that in most states (but not all) it is a blanket offence for a felon to be in possession of a gun, but that is separate from the ACCA [ . . . ]

Yes, and the Browns were convicted under the Federal statute, as noted above, which makes it a criminal offense for a felon to possess a firearm.

[tmtoulouse]

And its official:

ENDORSED ORDER granting Petitioner's request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.<p? Text of Order: GRANTED WITHOUT OBJECTION. For reasons adequately stated in Petitioner's Supplemental Memorandum (ECF No. and the United States Response (ECF No. 10), the Court GRANTS Petitioner's request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Specifically, applying the decision announced in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), the Court hereby VACATES this Defendant's conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count IV). In light of this relief, the Court will resentence this Defendant on the remaining counts of conviction in DNH Docket No. 09-cr-30-GZS. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal.(vln) (Entered: 12/05/2019)

Ed, Jason and Daniel should all expect similar orders in the next day or so.

[grixit]

Well, if there was ever a time for someone who's thrown their life and resources away to find themself back on the streets, it's now. He and Elaine can hit the sovereign lecture circuit, make some videos, sell some merch. As heroes of the movement who achieved "victory" against the feds, they should be able to make enough to afford a used van to live in, just like all the other "winners".

[The Observer]

IANAL, but still not seeing why this means that Ed or any of his co-defendants would be released since they are still convicted for other counts, and are just going to receive a re-sentencing.

[Famspear]

IANAL, but still not seeing why this means that Ed or any of his co-defendants would be released since they are still convicted for other counts, and are just going to receive a re-sentencing.

Yeah, it depends on the sentences that they receive.

[GlimDropper]

Rudy Davis
·

Betrayal! by Ed Brown

Dear Friends:
The courts have my case and I have received their first acceptance of vacating the 924(c)
that was passed by the Supreme court as unconstitutional on June 24 2019.
The Judge George Z. Singal is attempting to return me to court (I will go) and re-sentence
me to a new 360 month's to life. This judge is truly evil. I have recommended that he recuse
himself and notified the court of the unconstitutional procedures he is exposing me to.
I will keep you posted and let you know. I will be returning to court between now and March.
I am not without knowledge. and I move with the conviction that our Lord Jesus is with me.

See you soon.
Ed...end
Father

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I am not without knowledge. and I move with the conviction that our Lord Jesus is with me.

Fixed it for him!

[Pottapaug1938]

Oh, Lord Jesus will be with Ed, alright. As Ed serves his new sentence, Jesus will remind him of Exodus 20:15.

[notorial dissent]

But... but... but... Ed, that's what courts do when part of your sentence is overturned or voided, they just resentence you on the surviving charges. In your case you're still a nasty vicious old man guilty of several other equally things and are going to remain in prison. What, you thought you were going to just walk away free? Doesn't work that way.

[Baidn]

It's been a while since I've heard of any reliable updates on this case and I was wondering if one of the more legally astute folks on here could tell me what they think the odds are Ed actually does get out of prison any time soon? I've been listening to his calls to old lonedummy and in my layman perspective it seems like all he's been accomplishing is getting poor Rudy to waste money sending him from various scam sites that reenforce his misguided view. He's got big plans to strike it rich on nutjob circuit peddling woo so I imagine even if he does get out he'll find himself right back in before too long. Anyway any reliable updates or theories would be appreciated, Ed and Rudy are not exactly trustworthy narrators and I'm starved for entertainment during this crappy crappy time :p

[jcolvin2]

It's been a while since I've heard of any reliable updates on this case and I was wondering if one of the more legally astute folks on here could tell me what they think the odds are Ed actually does get out of prison any time soon? I've been listening to his calls to old lonedummy and in my layman perspective it seems like all he's been accomplishing is getting poor Rudy to waste money sending him from various scam sites that reenforce his misguided view. He's got big plans to strike it rich on nutjob circuit peddling woo so I imagine even if he does get out he'll find himself right back in before too long. Anyway any reliable updates or theories would be appreciated, Ed and Rudy are not exactly trustworthy narrators and I'm starved for entertainment during this crappy crappy time :p

The judge scheduled the resentencing for a video hearing on August 10, 2020, permitting Ed to either consent or object. (A felony defendant has a right to an in-person sentencing.) Ed objected, and the August 10, 2020 hearing was canceled. An in-person resentencing will likely be scheduled at some point during the remainder of the year.

[notorial dissent]

And Ed continues to prove just how really stupid and self destructive he is.