Brown supporter trial (Continued)

[Demosthenes]

I've posted an update for those following the trial:

http://www.redcrayons.net

[LPC]

Demo has posted another update describing yesterday's testimony.

[ElfNinosMom]

I've been reading Demo's blog via RSS, thanks for posting updates from the trial.

I tried to access the site this morning, to leave a comment, but I keep getting a connection error.

[Imalawman]

I've been reading Demo's blog via RSS, thanks for posting updates from the trial.

I tried to access the site this morning, to leave a comment, but I keep getting a connection error.

Same here.

[webhick]

Here too. But I read it last night. Some good stuff in there on Bob the Squirrel.

Accessing the IP results in the same error as the url (unlike last time, which displayed a misconfiguration error). A little paranoid voice in the back of my head is shouting "DOS Attack", but it's probably just a little too much traffic or something.

[webhick]

Paranoid voice is paranoid. It looks like the server is back.

[Demosthenes]

Today was *way* interesting.

The prison snitch turned out to be one of the smartest people I've ever seen. Think Hannibal Lector without a moral compass.

[Imalawman]

Today was *way* interesting.

The prison snitch turned out to be one of the smartest people I've ever seen. Think Hannibal Lector without a moral compass.

oooh, fun. I will wait with fava beans and glass of chianti for the post to come up tonight. I had forgotten about the prison snitch. One of the smartest people you've ever seen? seriously, or are you just using hyperbole?

[Demosthenes]

One of the smartest people you've ever seen? seriously, or are you just using hyperbole?

The guy was absolutely fascinating. In a different world, he'd have been a brilliant lawyer.

[Demosthenes]

Ah yeah, and Dogwalker Day (June 7) was indeed a failed plan to arrest Ed Brown. Ed had been coming down to the mailbox every morning on his ATV, so they set up a plan to arrest him on his next mail pick up.

Danny showed up walking the dog, and the rest is history.

[webhick]

Ah yeah, and Dogwalker Day (June 7) was indeed a failed plan to arrest Ed Brown. Ed had been coming down to the mailbox every morning on his ATV, so they set up a plan to arrest him on his next mail pick up.

Danny showed up walking the dog, and the rest is history.

An opportunistic plan: "We'll arrest him if he checks his mail but, there's no plan for invasion at this point."

[LPC]

Ah yeah, and Dogwalker Day (June 7) was indeed a failed plan to arrest Ed Brown. Ed had been coming down to the mailbox every morning on his ATV, so they set up a plan to arrest him on his next mail pick up.

Danny showed up walking the dog, and the rest is history.

Okay, *that* makes sense.

I had difficultly believing that the Marshals would mount a frontal assault on the Browns, as many Brown supporters had alleged, but also had difficulty believing that the Marshals were there just for surveillance, as they had originally claimed, because there seemed to be way too much hardware and personnel.

But a plan to ambush Ed while he was alone would fit the Marshal's desire to avoid bloodshed and the level of activity that day.

[Demosthenes]

But a plan to ambush Ed while he was alone would fit the Marshal's desire to avoid bloodshed and the level of activity that day.

And the arrest team that was put in place to arrest Ed Brown was armed with non lethal rounds.

My favorite question of the day came from Danny's lawyer as proof that Brown and his supporters weren't violent:

Wiberg: The dog was never sicced on the team, was it?
Marshal: On the arrest team? No.

[LPC]

My favorite question of the day came from Danny's lawyer as proof that Brown and his supporters weren't violent:

Wiberg: The dog was never sicced on the team, was it?

So the intent of the dog can be equated with the intent of the humans?

[Demosthenes]

Elaine isn't going to testify. She apparently took the 5th and they sent her back to Connecticut already.

I think the defense is going to find that the patriot community is a tad flaky.

[Demosthenes]

The new post is up for the evening.

http://www.redcrayons.net

[Demosthenes]

Posted by Reno's daddy.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Randomly selected....
Category: News and Politics


So here is yet another bridge to cross.

With our subpoenas in hand and travel itineraries at the ready, my son, Lee, logged onto the Internet to print up our ticket for New Hampshire.

His tickets printed out without a hitch but my tickets required special handling.
We called the toll-free number and were told that I had been "…randomly selected for additional security search."

Ok.
This will be my third flight in roughly as many years and the second "randomly selected" search.
My subpoena says nothing about my succumbing to a search and I will refuse being further humiliated at the airport.

I wonder what will result from my decision but I am making a stand for my own dignity.

U.S. Marshals should have made better arrangements.

I was looking forward to testifying the TRUTH to the jurors.
It is too late to call the lawyer’s office but I will email him tonight.

They should have sent me a train ticket.


STAND FOR FREEDOM

keep the faith


:{ jmg

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Posted by Reno's daddy.

This will be my third flight in roughly as many years and the second "randomly selected" search.
My subpoena says nothing about my succumbing to a search and I will refuse being further humiliated at the airport.

I wonder what will result from my decision but I am making a stand for my own dignity.

U.S. Marshals should have made better arrangements.

:{ jmg

Don't worry Jose. The US Marshals will make alternate arrangements. However, I suspect that you will get a more thorough search under that alternate arrangement.

[Demosthenes]

I'm starting to wonder if there will be *any* defense witnesses in this case. They all seem to be bailing.

[LPC]

Bill Riley has some interesting spin on the defense witnesses taking the 5th Amendment:

Well, one thing that has been very special about this trial, in addition to the sudden imposition of ID checks at the court house door, has been the unusual amount of goings on in judges chambers outside of the public view.

Yesterday we were suppose to see Elaine Brown called to the stand but it looks like that is not going to happen. It seems that this judge doesn't want any witness to take the 5th on the stand in front of the jury so almost all of the defense witnesses that were on the Brown property are taking the 5th in chambers and not being allowed to testify. The prosecution is using this as a tool to effectively shutdown most of the defense witnesses (isn't that special?). Immunity anyone? (Not likely.)

So now we have a situation were the jury will not hear extremely relevant testimony because having a witness plead the 5th on the stand would make the defendants look innocent (and we just can't have that). Yet without their testimony this trial is beginning to look like a joke (but I will reserve judgement until all of this case has been presented to the jury).

God bless

I suspect that the situation is the opposite of what Riley is spinning, and that the defense doesn't want the jury to hear that their own witnesses plead the 5th Amendment, which would suggest to the jury that the witnesses themselves now think that they were part of something illegal. The problem is not that the pleading of the 5th Amendment by a witness would make the jury think that the defendants might be innocent, but that the jury might think that the defendants are guilty.

If a defense witness had "extremely relevant testimony" that the witness was willing to present without invoking the 5th Amendment, I'm sure that the defense lawyers could get that witness on the stand. However, my recollection is that a witness can't pick and choose which questions to answer and which to refuse to answer, so a witness must be willing to waive the 5th Amendment before taking the stand. None of the defense witnesses are willing to do that, so the defendants are on their own.

It's possible that the defense lawyers agree with Bill Riley, and would like for the jury to see defense witnesses invoke the 5th Amendment on the stand and refuse to testify, and that the judge is refusing to allow that to happen. But in that case, the jury is not being deprived of any "extremely relevant testimony" but merely the charade of a witness taking the stand, being sworn in, identifying themselves, being asked a question about the Browns, invoking the 5th Amendment, and being excused without answering any relevant questions.

(Interesting legal issue: The jury is instructed not to take any inference against the defendant when the defendant refuses to testify on his own behalf, but is the jury allowed to draw inferences from a non-defendant witness's refusal to testify? I suspect not, but for 6th Amendment reasons and not 5th Amendment reasons.)