Browns agree to be represented by their attorneys

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm not an alcoholic; but I think that I'd be well on my way to being one if I was standby counsel for the :Browns. It was bad enough when I was in practice, and had to keep clients on the rails sometimes.

[Demosthenes]

The good stuff is in docket #114

The defense of necessity is an affirmative defense to some criminal statutes. When it is
available, the defendant has the burden to prove its applicability by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Maxwell, 254 F.3d 21, 24-25 (1st Cir. 2001); United States v. Dicks, 338 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292, 1296 (11th Cir. 2000). The defense is only employed, however, if a defendant admits to the underlying offense and offers a factual justification for his actions. See, e.g., United States v. Fay, 668 F.2d 35 (8th Cir. 1981). To employ the defense a defendant must establish: (1) that he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; (2) he acted to prevent imminent harm; (3) he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm he was seeking to prevent; and, (4) there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law.

[snip]

The defendants cannot come close to satisfying any of the elements of the defense, and
therefore these truant discovery requests are a mere fishing expedition. Their conduct was
obviously not a response to a “choice of evils” because they had the clear opportunity to leave the property and surrender to law enforcement, or to leave the property and not surrender to law enforcement.

The defendants voluntarily placed themselves in fugitive status on their property and took
no steps to prevent an imminent harm. Maxwell, 254 F.3d at 27 (“the term ‘imminent harm’ connotes a real emergency, a crisis involving immediate danger to oneself or a third party”) citing United States v. Newcomb, 6 F.3d 1129, 1135-36 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270, 1276 (10th Cir. 1982). In fact, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence in this case is that the USMS was committed - painstakingly so - to pursuing a peaceful resolution of the stand-off, and that the defendants’ conduct substantially increased the chances that someone, probably a Deputy United States Marshal, would be killed.

In addition, there is no basis in the record, nor will there be at the conclusion of the trial,
for the defendants to have reasonably believed that the USMS was going to kill them or that their conduct would eliminate that imaginary threat. Maxwell, 254 F.3d at 28 (a defendant cannot “will a causal relationship into being simply by the fervor of his convictions no matter how sincerely held”), citing United States v. Montgomery, 772 F.2d 733, 736 (11th Cir. 1985)(holding that defendants could not reasonably have believed that their entry into a defense plant would bring about nuclear disarmament); United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 433 (9th cir. 1985) (finding that defendant had failed to establish that breaking into an air force base and vandalizing government property could reasonably be expected to lead to the termination of the MX missile program); United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979) (per curiam) (finding it unlikely that splashing blood on Pentagon walls would impel the United States to divest itself of nuclear weapons).

In addition, a number of legal alternatives were available to the defendants. They could
have decided to not put themselves in the dangerous position they did, they could have
affirmatively withdrawn, they could have cooperated with the USMS, they could have made an attempt to negotiate with the USMS, and they could have tried to get a Presidential pardon for their crimes. In this regard the First Circuit has stated, “[t]o succeed on a necessity defense a defendant must show that he had no legal alternative to violating the law. United States v. Turner, 44 F.3d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1995). This makes perfect sense; the necessity defense does not arise from a defendant’s choice of a preferred course of action from among a universe of possible courses of action (some legal, some not) but from an emergent crisis that, as a practical matter, precludes all principled options but one”. Maxwell, 254 F.3d at 28, citing Seward 687 F.2d at 1276. In addition, “[t]he fact that [a defendant] is unlikely to affect the changes he desires through legal alternatives does not mean, ipso facto, that those alternatives are non-existent. [Citation omitted]. Accepting such an argument would be tantamount to giving an individual carte blanche to interpose a necessity defense whenever he becomes disaffected by the workings of the political process. Maxwell, 254 F.3d at 29. (Emphasis added).

[Demosthenes]

"Defendants, EDWARD BROWN and ELAINE BROWN, as entered on the indictment, are corporations, represented by court-appointed attorneys, as defendants have no physical capacity to appear in court."

EDWARD BROWN and ELAINE BROWN were not indicted. Edward Brown and Elaine Brown were.

From the indictment:

From in or around January 2007, through October 4, 2007, in the District of New Hampshire and elsewhere, the defendants,

Edward Brown and Elaine Brown

knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed with each other and with other individuals, both known and unknown to the grand jury, to prevent, by force, intimidation and threat, employees of the United States Marshals Service, who are officers of the United States in the discharge of their official duties

[Famspear]

EDWARD BROWN and ELAINE BROWN were not indicted. Edward Brown and Elaine Brown were.

From the indictment:

Edward Brown and Elaine Brown

Curses! They spelled our names right! Foiled by that mean ol', bad ol', eeeebbbbbiiiiil "United States: Government"!!!!

But wait! Maybe the government did not use the right font in printing the names in the indictment!!?? Yeah..... that's the ticket!!

[Red Cedar PM]

But wait! Maybe the government did not use the right font in printing the names in the indictment!!?? Yeah..... that's the ticket!!

Doesn't matter as long as they get the red crayon out and write "REFUSED FOR CAUSE" on the indictment - just has to be diagonal, top left to bottom right on each page. Victory!

[Demosthenes]

06/10/2009 115 ORDER on Government's Request for Protective Order as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re: 109 MOTION for Discovery. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_115.pdf

06/11/2009 116 NOTICE of Refusal of Mail by Edward Brown re: Order, Doc. #99 by Edward Brown. (dae) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_116.pdf

[cynicalflyer]

As requested in the Government’s Response, the Court hereby ORDERS that the redacted Special Operations Group Operations Order (which is being produced to defense counsel) be used by counsel, the defendants and personnel in counsel’s respective offices for purposes of this trial and any related appeals. There shall be no dissemination or reproduction, mechanical or manual, of the information contained in the Special Operations Groups Operations Order absent specific prior Court approval.

If the Browns get ahold of this, a copy machine, and 15 minutes, I bet they copy it. Now, they'll never get it out via the mail, but still....

[Demosthenes]

06/12/2009 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING ON MOTION as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re: 109 MOTION for Discovery and Joinder. Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2009 10:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal. Further instructions will follow as to calling procedure. (dae) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

06/15/2009 117 AFFIDAVIT of Truth by Edward and Elaine Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Concord Monitor Article)(dae) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_117.pdf

06/15/2009 118 AFFIDAVIT of Edward-Lewis:Brown and Elaine-Alice:Brown Demanding Release Due to Refusal of Court and US Attorney to Submit Proof of Jurisdiction by Edward and Elaine Brown (dae) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_118.pdf

06/15/2009 119 NOTICE of Objection - re jury sequestration by Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_119.pdf

[cynicalflyer]

From Doc 117

6. We are becoming weary of the continuing fabrication of the government, with
their illusion of remedy when there is none, with their lies and deceits in their zeal
to win yet another case, and destroy two more innocent lives. If this continues
much longer the court will force us to enter a position of "nay nay" and all
communication will end. If the court will not cooperate and maintain proper
decorum and control of its own actors, even in their legal fiction, it will be nay
nay.

Old Ed Brown had a trial, E-I-E-I-O;
And in his trial he had a "STRAWMAN", E-I-E-I-O;
With a "nay nay" here and a "nay nay" there;
Here a "nay";
There a "nay";
Everywhere a "nay nay";
Old Ed Brown had a trial, E-I-E-I-O!

By the way, isn't this the ninth time Ed's threatened or said he'd have no communication with the court in the future?

[cynicalflyer]

Doc 118 is the Joe Haas' special.

Affiants have submitted facts of lack of jurisdiction is several affidavits, in which
we cited New Hampshire RSA123:1 which addresses the ceding of land to the
United States and the attending jurisdiction, which has never been properly done
in the case of the federal courthouse at 53-55 Pleasant St., Concord.

[cynicalflyer]

P.S. Has anyone noticed the 1st Circuit case the Browns filed? 38 pages of unequivocal drivel. I have the "petition"; they are trying NOW to appeal the prior conviction. Most of the 38 pages are Ed & Elaine's version of events. Basically, they are laying out their defense already, in writing.

Giggle. Giggle.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-8018 Docketed: 05/11/2009
Termed: 06/04/2009
Brown, et al v. US
Appeal From: Misc
Case Type Information:
1) miscellaneous
2) other miscellaneous
3) -
Originating Court Information:
District: Misc-1 : 1:06-cr-00071-SM
Court Reporter: Sandra L. Bailey
Court Reporter: Susan M. Bateman
Court Reporter: Diane M. Churas
Court Reporter: Lori Dostie Dunbar
Trial Judge: Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge
Trial Judge: Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge
Ordering Judge: Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge
Trial Judge: George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge
Trial Judge: John A. Woodcock, U.S. District Judge
Trial Judge: James R. Muirhead, Magistrate Judge
Date Filed: 04/05/2006
Date Order/Judgment: Date Rec'd COA:
04/24/2007 05/07/2009

District: Misc-1 : 1:09-cr-00030-GZ
Date Filed: 01/21/2009
Date Rec'd COA:
05/07/2009

05/07/2009 Open Document MISCELLANEOUS CASE filed by pro se Petitioners Edward Lewis Brown and Elaine A. Brown. Opening forms sent. Certificate of service was not included. [09-8018]
05/07/2009 Open Document PETITION filed by pro se Petitioners Edward Lewis Brown and Elaine A. Brown for relief from District Court orders, judgments and sentences. Certificate of service was not included. [09-8018]
05/20/2009 Open Document MOTION filed by pro se Petitioners Edward Lewis Brown and Elaine A. Brown to amend case caption. Certificate of service was not included. [09-8018]
05/20/2009 Public docket note: Copy of Motion to Amend Caption filed this date by pro se Appellants' was mailed to opposing counsel, by the Case Manager. [09-8018]
05/28/2009 Open Document AFFIDAVIT filed by pro se Petitioners Edward Lewis Brown and Elaine A. Brown. Certificate of service was not included. [09-8018]
06/03/2009 Open Document ORDER denying motion to amend caption filed by Petitioners Elaine A. Brown and Edward Lewis Brown. [09-8018]
06/04/2009 Open Document JUDGMENT entered by Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and Jeffrey R. Howard, Appellate Judge. Denied [09-8018]

[Imalawman]

From Doc 117

6. We are becoming weary of the continuing fabrication of the government, with
their illusion of remedy when there is none, with their lies and deceits in their zeal
to win yet another case, and destroy two more innocent lives. If this continues
much longer the court will force us to enter a position of "nay nay" and all
communication will end. If the court will not cooperate and maintain proper
decorum and control of its own actors, even in their legal fiction, it will be nay
nay.

Old Ed Brown had a trial, E-I-E-I-O;
And in his trial he had a "STRAWMAN", E-I-E-I-O;
With a "nay nay" here and a "nay nay" there;
Here a "nay";
There a "nay";
Everywhere a "nay nay";
Old Ed Brown had a trial, E-I-E-I-O!

By the way, isn't this the ninth time Ed's threatened or said he'd have no communication with the court in the future?

Keyboard warning please. The court only hopes that he will follow through on his threats of silence.

[notorial dissent]

Question, is “nay nay” any relation to “nener nener”? Inquiring minds have run out of anything else productive to do.

[Gregg]

Question, is “nay nay” any relation to “nener nener”? Inquiring minds have run out of anything else productive to do.

I'm not sure, when I first saw it I thought of 'nanoo nanoo' and Mork from Ork

[Demosthenes]

06/16/2009 120 Notice of Partial Voluntary Disclosure Re: Motion for Discovery (document #109) by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown (Huftalen, Arnold) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_120.pdf

06/16/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George Z. Singal: TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown held on 6/16/2009 re 109 MOTION for Discovery and 110 Joinder in Motion by Edward Brown. The Motion was GRANTED IN PART with rulings stated on the record. To the extent that the Government is making additional production pursuant to this ruling, the materials produced shall be subject to the same protective order previously entered (see Docket # 115). (Court Reporter: Lori Dunbar, USDC - Maine) (Govt Atty: Terry Ollila, Arnold Huftalen, Cedric Bullock) (Defts Atty: Michael Iacopino, Kristen Clouser, Bjorn Lange)(Total Hearing Time: 18 minutes)(CJA Time: 20 minutes) (dae) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/16/2009 ENDORSED ORDER granting 113 MOTION Leave to File Response One Hour Late as to Edward Brown (1), Elaine Brown (2). Text of Order: GRANTED. So Ordered. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/16/2009 121 NOTICE of Refusal of Mail by Edward Brown re: Order, Doc. #100 by Edward Brown. (dae) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_121.pdf

[Demosthenes]

06/17/2009 122 Assented to MOTION for Subpoenas by Elaine Brown. (Lange, Bjorn) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_122.pdf

06/17/2009 123 MOTION in Limine by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. Follow up on Objection on 7/6/2009. (Huftalen, Arnold) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_123.pdf

[Demosthenes]

06/20/2009 124 OBJECTION by Elaine Brown re 123 MOTION in Limine. (Lange, Bjorn) (Entered: 06/20/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_124.pdf

06/20/2009 125 OBJECTION by Edward Brown re 123 MOTION in Limine. (Iacopino, Michael) (Entered: 06/20/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_125.pdf

06/22/2009 126 TRIAL BRIEF by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (Huftalen, Arnold) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_126.pdf

[Judge Roy Bean]

What goes through my mind when I read some of these more recent filings is what it must be like for the public defenders while they're trying to craft a rescue from the Brown's self-scuttled ship.

How do you un-ring the bell of gibberish for a client?

[.]

While the chance of either of them being put on to testify in their own defense has to be approximately zero, it sure could make for some interesting cross.

Why is there no 'salivating' thingy?

[Demosthenes]

06/22/2009 127 NOTICE of Refusal of Mail by Elaine Brown re Order: Doc. #102 by Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_127.pdf

06/22/2009 128 Proposed Voir Dire by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (Huftalen, Arnold) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_128.pdf

06/22/2009 129 Proposed Jury Instructions by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (Huftalen, Arnold) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_129.pdf

06/22/2009 130 Preliminary Exhibit List by Edward Brown (Iacopino, Michael) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_130.pdf

06/22/2009 131 WITNESS LIST by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (Huftalen, Arnold) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_131.pdf

06/22/2009 132 WITNESS LIST by Edward Brown. (Iacopino, Michael) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_132.pdf

06/22/2009 133 Assented to MOTION for Subpoena for Additional Subpoenas by Edward Brown. Notice to Government Attorney - If this motion requests a subpoena for personal or confidential information about a victim, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3), the government shall immediately provide the victim with notice of this motion. Ex parte motions are exempt from this requirement. (Iacopino, Michael) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_133.pdf