Ed and Elaine's Indictment has been unsealed

[mutter]

My favorite part was the 1040-V...only I can't tell if that's an an 11, a 4, a 9, or a $1. Not that it matters much once you hit the billion range.

easy for you to say!

I cant believe that non of you got that Paulson was not the Sec. Of treasury when she submitted these. guess thats whay they didnt get their Billion
these remind me of something I saw years ago. Oh yea, straw man treasury account right? the treasury has some account for all of us, something like that

ive a serious question thou, for one of the lawyers. How can a clerk issue any warrants? It was a deputy clerk that signed the arrest warrant. Since when do clerks have the authority to issue a warrant?

[webhick]

ive a serious question thou, for one of the lawyers. How can a clerk issue any warrants? It was a deputy clerk that signed the arrest warrant. Since when do clerks have the authority to issue a warrant?

I'm not a lawyer, but a google search for "deputy clerk arrest warrant" indicates that several states (NJ being the first hit) allow a deputy clerk to sign a warrant. I guess they can do it if the law permits them to.

[Famspear]

ive a serious question thou, for one of the lawyers. How can a clerk issue any warrants? It was a deputy clerk that signed the arrest warrant. Since when do clerks have the authority to issue a warrant?

I'm not a lawyer, but a google search for "deputy clerk arrest warrant" indicates that several states (NJ being the first hit) allow a deputy clerk to sign a warrant. I guess they can do it if the law permits them to.

From Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (and see also 18 USC section 3046):

Rule 9. Arrest Warrant or Summons on an Indictment or Information

(a) Issuance.

The court must issue a warrant -- or at the government's request, a summons -- for each defendant named in an indictment or named in an information if one or more affidavits accompanying the information establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it.

[ . . . . ]

(b) Form.

(1) Warrant.

The warrant [ . . . . ]must be signed by the clerk and must describe the offense charged in the indictment or information.

(bolding added)

I haven’t checked, but I would assume that the function of the clerk can be performed by a deputy clerk.

[webhick]

I haven’t checked, but I would assume that the function of the clerk can be performed by a deputy clerk.

That would make sense because the deputy doesn't get shot.

[Famspear]

On the clerk of a federal district court and the deputy clerks, see generally 28 USC 751 and 28 USC 956. However, those provisions don't really go into detail on what a deputy can or cannot do.

[Gregg]

I haven’t checked, but I would assume that the function of the clerk can be performed by a deputy clerk.

That would make sense because the deputy doesn't get shot.

Yes he does, But Bob Marley doesn't shoot him. maybe Ziggy does, or Peter Tosh was into guns I think..

[LPC]

Elaine Brown said in court she would not attend the trial

Both say they will represent themselves.

I wonder how Elaine plans on representing herself while not attending her trial.

Astral projection.

[grixit]

Hey i just thought of something. If you're a jailed sovereign, you should be able to escape by leaving your strawman in your bunk as a decoy.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Hey i just thought of something. If you're a jailed sovereign, you should be able to escape by leaving your strawman in your bunk as a decoy.

He'll be here all week, folks. Don't forget to tip your waitress!

[mutter]

I haven’t checked, but I would assume that the function of the clerk can be performed by a deputy clerk.

That would make sense because the deputy doesn't get shot.

You are so demented. i like that.

[mutter]

On the clerk of a federal district court and the deputy clerks, see generally 28 USC 751 and 28 USC 956. However, those provisions don't really go into detail on what a deputy can or cannot do.

I was thinking more along the lines of only the court/judge can sign this stuff. I guess theyre so busy they need the clerks to do that work. along with the rules specifically saying issue a warrant. I assume the indictments is evidence enough to 'warrant' the arrest.

[Famspear]

Yes, in federal courts, various officers besides the judge do have official functions. Another example is the issuance of a subpoena in a federal civil case, where either the clerk or an attorney may sign and issue a subpoena. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:

(A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or

(B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.

--from Rule 45(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Similarly, in a federal criminal case:

A subpoena must state the court’s name and the title of the proceeding, include the seal of the court, and command the witness to attend and testify at the time and place the subpoena specifies. The clerk must issue a blank subpoena—signed and sealed—to the party requesting it, and that party must fill in the blanks before the subpoena is served.

---Rule 17(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (bolding added).

[Dezcad]

I'm not trying to scoop "Scopp", but here is her latest article:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/2 ... ubmitted=1

Elaine Brown has asked a federal judge to allow her and her husband, Ed, to meet so they can map out a defense strategy without an attorney. The couple face weapons and conspiracy charges in connection with a nearly nine-month standoff with federal officials.

The Browns were allowed to meet briefly after their arraignment last week, according to U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier. But other than that short encounter, they have not seen each other since their arrests in October 2007.

In separate arraignments, both Browns said they were not the people named in the indictment, which listed six federal felony charges for Elaine Brown and seven for Ed Brown. Elaine Brown also told a magistrate judge that she did not wish to participate in her case in any way. But in her handwritten motion, filed Tuesday, Elaine Brown identifies herself and her husband by the names used on the indictment and suggests that she plans to mount a defense to the charges.

"The respondent, Elaine Brown, requests frequent periodic visits with her husband and co-defendant, Edward Brown, also pro se, for the purpose of planning their defense strategy, to begin immediately," the motion reads. "As both respondents are currently housed at the same facility, Strafford County Jail, there should be no logistics problem with granting this motion."

The Browns were convicted of several tax-related crimes in January 2007, but they holed up in their home and refused to surrender to federal officials for nearly nine months. During the standoff, they entertained guests, participated in a near-daily radio program and issued repeated threats against federal and local officials. They are accused of plotting to prevent their arrest and of stockpiling weapons and homemade bombs to keep marshals from entering their property.

If convicted, they face mandatory minimum sentences of 30 years in prison for the most serious crime alone.

Four of their supporters have already been convicted of helping the couple escape capture. Their sentences ranged from 30 months to 36 years in federal prisons.

[LPC]

Elaine Brown has asked a federal judge to allow her and her husband, Ed, to meet so they can map out a defense strategy without an attorney.

You say "map out a defense strategy," I say "conspire to commit perjury."

There's obviously a right to counsel, and lawyers representing co-defendants are free to talk (or not talk) to each other as they please, but is there any right of a pro se defendant to confer with another pro se defendant? I would expect not.

And I think that the judge might do them both a favor by keeping them apart. Acting separately, they are limited to their own ignorance and stupidity, and there is at least the chance that their stupidities will cancel each other out. (I.e., Ellen might say or do something that hurts her case, but helps Ed, or vice versa.) Allowing them to combine and coordinate their stupidities could really cause some serious damage to whatever slim chances they might have.

I've been told that the average investor realizes yields that are worse than those produced by choosing investments at random. Similarly, a randomly chosen legal argument would probably do better than what Ed and Elaine might "map out."

[fortinbras]

A very real possibility is the Ed, being the very dominant and egocentric one of the pair, is going to instruct Elaine on how to take all the weight so he gets off lightly.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

There's obviously a right to counsel, and lawyers representing co-defendants are free to talk (or not talk) to each other as they please, but is there any right of a pro se defendant to confer with another pro se defendant? I would expect not.

Actually, I think there is (drawing purely on memory here at this hour). The most recent example that comes to mind is the Dorean Group trial where Johnson and Heineman were representing themselves.

[Nikki]

Since there's no whipsaw, playing the defendants against each other, there shouldn't be any reason they should not be allowed to coordinate their defenses.

That said, it will make absolutely no difference {with one exception noted below} if they work together or separatelt. The evidence against both of them is overwhelming. The prosecution doesn't need to cut a deal with one to plead against the other -- they're both going to be convicted and spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Now for the exception. If they are allowed to collaborate, they will probably manage to produce much more creative, inane pleadings than if they have to work on their own. Two heads are better than one, especially if they're both half-wits.

[Famspear]

If they are allowed to collaborate, they will probably manage to produce much more creative, inane pleadings than if they have to work on their own. Two heads are better than one, especially if they're both half-wits.

Yeah, maybe -- or maybe not. That depends on whether their "joint wit efforts" turn out to be additive or, alternatively, multiplicative in their effect.

?? huh ???

Oh, you know.....

1/2 wit (Ed) + 1/2 wit (Elaine) = 1.0 wit

But......

1/2 wit times 1/2 wit = 1/4 wit (i.e., not nearly so much wit if you multiply, you know)



Sorry, I couldn't resist a possibly futile stab at arithmetical humor. I'll try to make that my last and only infusion of math in this thread......

[grixit]

Actually, i think you need to use complex arithmetic, in which case you need to compute a dot product.

[Nikki]

Continuing along the same pathetic path:

Actually, combining theri cases will have a negative result:

They both have huge egos.

That means, they both revolve around "I"

{you see it coming, don't you}

Everyone knows that I * I = -1

I know: go to my room.