The wet noodle judge wiggles again

[Demosthenes]

Judge files Browns' appeal
Tax evaders intended challenge in January

By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff

May 10, 2007 8:00AM

Notice of Ed and Elaine Brown's desire to appeal their tax evasion convictions has been sent along to the federal appeals court in Boston, even though the couple have not indicated that they want to appeal.

The Browns, who have been holed up in their fortified Plainfield home for several months, have said on radio broadcasts and internet postings that they are returning any government mail unopened and have described the court as a "fiction" unworthy of their attention. They have not sent any new documents to the court since their sentencing hearing April 24.

Even so, Judge Steven McAuliffe, who oversaw their case, decided to infer from previous filings that the Browns intended to appeal, even if they failed to file the necessary paperwork by the deadline.

A few days after they were found guilty of conspiring to evade taxes on nearly $1.9 million in Elaine Brown's income and of plotting to disguise large financial transactions, the couple filed a document stating their intention to appeal the decision. But because the Browns had not been sentenced yet, the judgment in their case was not yet considered final. McAuliffe returned their filing fee and dismissed their motion, finding it premature.

But recently, he reversed that opinion, saying in a court order that he had decided to treat the January notice of appeal as if it had been filed in April.

"The notices of appeal are deemed timely," he wrote, asking the Browns to repay the filing fee within 30 days.

This week, McAuliffe urged the process along, though the record reflects no filings or payments by the Browns. A new order instructed the clerk to forward the court record to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The court docket also includes a copy of the cover letter the clerk sent to the appeals court.

If they choose to pursue an appeal, the Browns must now file documents with the circuit court explaining what they think went wrong at the trial court.

Ed Brown chose not to answer questions about his plans to appeal yesterday.

"You don't exist," he said. "I don't care."

But Cirino Gonzalez, a former military contractor who is a recent addition to the Brown household, posted on the couple's MySpace page that they had learned about the judge's decision from U.S. marshals who have been calling daily. The marshals are charged with arresting the Browns on bench warrants but have said they will not raid the couple's home.

"The sentencing having been done the judge complains of not getting an appeal now that he is ready," Gonzalez wrote, in a posting that summarized the case's timeline from his perspective. "Time for appeal runs out and U.S. Marshal calls to inform Ed that the judge turned in an appeal on their behalf. HOW SWEET."

[Imalawman]

Wow, its getting ridiculous. Would you now agree Demo? How about arresting anyone helping the Browns? I see we're not enforcing that either. This whole thing just irritates me more and more. The US Attorney did his job, now the Marshalls and the ichthyoidal-spined Judge should do theirs. My God, this is embarrassing.

[Disilloosianed]

Lovely.....now when a TP screws up an appeal, can he argue that the court should have inferred his intent to appeal from his previous rantings?

[wserra]

A new order instructed the clerk to forward the court record to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

Perhaps when Mr. and Dr. Wacko once again give the Court the finger, the judge will file a brief for them in the First Circuit. Maybe he'll argue that he had no jurisdiction.

[Disilloosianed]

I can't imagine the First letting this go on too long without the participation or interest of the accused.

[Demosthenes]

I can't imagine the First letting this go on too long without the participation or interest of the accused.

And how about a filing fee? Hey, maybe the judge'll pay the fee for them too.

[webhick]

This is so silly and unbelievable that I wonder if this is a tactical thing.

What's the basis for the appeal? That the government should have declared Ed & Elaine mentally incompetent and unfit to stand trial?

[Demosthenes]

This is so silly and unbelievable that I wonder if this is a tactical thing.

What's the basis for the appeal? That the government should have declared Ed & Elaine mentally incompetent and unfit to stand trial?

Too soon. What was sent to the Appellate Court was simply a notice of the Browns' desire to appeal, even though they've made several public comments that they have no such intent.

[Lambkin]

Why doesn't the judge just vacate his own rulings on the basis that he doesn't exist?

[webhick]

Why doesn't the judge just vacate his own rulings on the basis that he doesn't exist?

In order to do that, he would have to admit that he exists - and you can't say that you exist just to say that you don't exist.

Paradox.

[TheSaint]

This is so silly and unbelievable that I wonder if this is a tactical thing.

I'm starting to wonder that too. Maybe the judge and the marshals have long since accepted that this is going to end in a standoff, and this is all just public relations to prove that the government gave the Browns every possible chance for peaceful reconciliation first.

[silversopp]

I'm starting to wonder that too. Maybe the judge and the marshals have long since accepted that this is going to end in a standoff, and this is all just public relations to prove that the government gave the Browns every possible chance for peaceful reconciliation first.

I'd just have a few agents undercover go to his home, win over his trust, and arrest him. They could pose as contractors building a runway for his F16?

[grixit]

Ok. What i've always said about the OJ verdict is: he seemed guilty to me but i wasn't on the jury. Likewise, this judge seems to me irresponsibly indulgent, even deferential to these criminals. And i'm saying thios as a liberal, just slightly to the right of Tom Hadyn. But i am not privy to the same info the judge is so i'm going to assume for now there's more to this than meets the eye and the Browns will get hauled in sooner than later.

[Joey Smith]

The judge is doing his best to protect his record against pro se litigants, who are shown an unusual and often unnecessary amount of deference by the appellate courts.

Besides, don't you want the Browns to file an appeal so as to demonstrate their nuttiness to the court of appeals (and also incidently provide us with great merriment)?

[Disilloosianed]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think that the general consensus of this thread, that the judge is showing an attempt to aid in anyway possible pro se litigants, is right. I have to admit that with some of mine, I've gone so far as to call the board (our trial level) and say "These folks have no idea what is going on...perhaps someone should call and see if the intend to show up."

[Weathervane]

I don't think the Judge made this decision on his own. Even federal Judges take advice from somebody.

After a crazy day at the office, he went home, poured himself a stout shot of single-malt, and called and asked his buddies a rung or two up the Appellate ladder what do do with these nutballs.

[Demosthenes]

Nah. This judge has been a wet noodle since day one of the trial.

[Demosthenes]

Court of Appeals Docket #: 07-1724 Filed: 5/9/07
Nsuit: 0 (Criminal or NOT SET)
US, et al v. Brown
Appeal from: U.S District Court of NH

Lower court information:
District: 0102-1 : 06-00071 lead: 06-00071
Ordering Judge: Steven J. McAuliffe, Chief Judge

5/9/07 CRIMINAL CASE docketed. Opening forms sent. Notice of
Appeal filed by Appellant Elaine A. Brown. Transcript
Report/Order due 5/23/07. Fee due 5/23/07. [07-1724] (lina)
[07-1724]

5/9/07 Involvement of attorney Jonathan R. Saxe for Elaine A.
Brown in 07-1724, attorney Jean B. Weld for US in 07-1724
terminated. [07-1724] (lina) [07-1724]

5/9/07 RECORD filed: 2 volume(s) consisting of docket entries
1-175. Transcript(s) filed by Susan M. Bateman, Diane M.
Churasi, Sandra L. Bailey in 07-1723, in 07-1724.
[1244862-1] [07-1723, 07-1724] (lina) [07-1723 07-1724]

5/9/07 Transcript of 5/24/06, Initial Appearance and Arraignment;
5/24/06, First Appearance and Arraignment; 9/26/06, Final
Pretrial Conference filed by court reporter Susan M.
Bateman in 07-1723, court reporter Susan M. Bateman in
07-1724. [07-1723, 07-1724] (lina) [07-1723 07-1724]

5/9/07 Transcript of 12/15/06, Final Pretrial Conference filed by
court reporter Diane M. Churas in 07-1723, court reporter
Diane Churas in 07-1724. [07-1723, 07-1724] (lina)
[07-1723 07-1724]

5/9/07 Transcript of 1/17/07, Day 4, Excerpted Transcript of Trial
filed by court reporter Sandra L. Bailey in 07-1723, court
reporter Sandra L. Bailey in 07-1724. [07-1723, 07-1724]
(lina) [07-1723 07-1724]

5/9/07 PRESENTENCE REPORT [UNDER SEAL] received and filed.
[1244871-1] [07-1724] (lina) [07-1724]

[The Observer]

5/9/07 CRIMINAL CASE docketed. Opening forms sent. Notice of
Appeal filed by Appellant Elaine A. Brown. Transcript
Report/Order due 5/23/07. Fee due 5/23/07. [07-1724] (lina)
[07-1724]

So either the judge is betting that the Browns won't pay the filing fee, thus easing his conscience about the outcome of his sentencing - or he will wimp out and pay for the fee out of his own pocket.

[webhick]

Report/Order due 5/23/07. Fee due 5/23/07.

It should be noted that the "Festival of the Vortex of Subliminal Dancing Monkeys" runs from 5/20/07 - 05/23/07. Strange things tend to happen during this time, so be wary.

I also want to make it perfectly clear that in regards to the due dates lying on the last day of the festival, the Illuminati's official stance is "Bring enough gum for everyone"