Brown trial, Part 2

[Judge Roy Bean]

I'm a long-time intermittent lurker, but I wanted to thank Demo for the reporting on this trial. Very interesting. I was unaware of this whole sub-culture until a while ago when I friend of mine asked me if paying taxes was really "voluntary". She'd seen something on You Tube. As a corporate tax attorney I didn't know what she was really talking about, since I'm pretty sure she wasn't using "voluntary" in the same way that I was using "voluntary". So I appreciate having this as a resource. So, thanks all.

It's really amazing how the 'sub-culture' continues to operate below the radar of legal professionals who are seemingly startled when they come into contact with it.

Some days I feel like there's a tin-foil hat on a large portion of the legal profession; they just don't want to know about whackos in the TP/TD world or the scam artists among the corporate world.

[Taxmole]

It's really amazing how the 'sub-culture' continues to operate below the radar of legal professionals who are seemingly startled when they come into contact with it.

Some days I feel like there's a tin-foil hat on a large portion of the legal profession; they just don't want to know about whackos in the TP/TD world or the scam artists among the corporate world.

I guess that's true. But also this isn't something I would ever run into in my work world. In my opinion, most folks who want to believe some TP argument aren't going to go to a real tax professional for a second opinion because they don't really want to know that this is a crock. Also - Operative - thanks for the welcome.

[Judge Roy Bean]

It's really amazing how the 'sub-culture' continues to operate below the radar of legal professionals who are seemingly startled when they come into contact with it.

Some days I feel like there's a tin-foil hat on a large portion of the legal profession; they just don't want to know about whackos in the TP/TD world or the scam artists among the corporate world.

I guess that's true. But also this isn't something I would ever run into in my work world. In my opinion, most folks who want to believe some TP argument aren't going to go to a real tax professional for a second opinion because they don't really want to know that this is a crock. Also - Operative - thanks for the welcome.

Methinks everyone needs to expand their concept of the "work world."

All comedy aside, one female comic noted that the fastest way to get young black men to pull up their pants would be for girls to point and laugh at them; something tells me the legal profession needs to do a better job of laughing at TP/TDs - every chance you get.

[webhick]

I'm curious about something Joe said over at the Monitor:

Yours truly, Joe Haas, P.S. And in preparation of anyone citing that 134 NH 480 stun gun case of State v. Haas (1991) against me for not the right to re-take (as I won that case), but for not to pre-vent, let me tell you of that the jury DID ask: can we find him not guilty if we find that he was "set up" by an arrogant COP? The judge telling my attorney only, not informing me the client, and so a violation of his ethics AND the judge's RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to abide by the Rules too, for "complete" justice by Art. 14, in that by the Rule for the "Entrapment" Defense, the answer was and still is: "yes", but that the judge answered the jury with a fence-sitter reply of: that's a question of fact for you to decide.

Did he really win that case, or is he lying again like he did with his criminal threatening case?

[Demosthenes]

So, what was in the elevator shaft?

Just sitting down to write up my notes now. It's been busy.

[Scoop]

I'm curious about something Joe said over at the Monitor:

Yours truly, Joe Haas, P.S. And in preparation of anyone citing that 134 NH 480 stun gun case of State v. Haas (1991) against me for not the right to re-take (as I won that case), but for not to pre-vent, let me tell you of that the jury DID ask: can we find him not guilty if we find that he was "set up" by an arrogant COP? The judge telling my attorney only, not informing me the client, and so a violation of his ethics AND the judge's RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to abide by the Rules too, for "complete" justice by Art. 14, in that by the Rule for the "Entrapment" Defense, the answer was and still is: "yes", but that the judge answered the jury with a fence-sitter reply of: that's a question of fact for you to decide.

Did he really win that case, or is he lying again like he did with his criminal threatening case?

Your Joe Haas questions, answered: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /503270345

[Gregg]

okay melon cat, it's after midnight, where's my daily crazy fix?

[Arthur Rubin]

okay melon cat, it's after midnight, where's my daily crazy fix?

It's not after midnight here, yet.

[wserra]

Any clue on whether Elaine is going to testify? At least for me, that would be far more interesting than Ed. The "throw Ed in front of the bus" urge would be overwhelming to someone normal.

I know, I know.

[Demosthenes]

No word on Elaine testifying yet.

[cynicalflyer]

No word on Elaine testifying yet.

Even better question: Will Ed be allowed to continue to testify (i.e. will he behave)?

I've got 5 quatloos says he gets chucked off the witness stand and his testimony stricken for failure to abide by the judge's instructions.

Takers?

[wserra]

Unlikely. That's an absolutely last resort. I'm not saying the judge won't get involved again, but he would be quite loath to strike a defendant's testimony.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

I'm curious about something Joe said over at the Monitor:

Yours truly, Joe Haas, P.S. And in preparation of anyone citing that 134 NH 480 stun gun case of State v. Haas (1991) against me for not the right to re-take (as I won that case), but for not to pre-vent, let me tell you of that the jury DID ask: can we find him not guilty if we find that he was "set up" by an arrogant COP? The judge telling my attorney only, not informing me the client, and so a violation of his ethics AND the judge's RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to abide by the Rules too, for "complete" justice by Art. 14, in that by the Rule for the "Entrapment" Defense, the answer was and still is: "yes", but that the judge answered the jury with a fence-sitter reply of: that's a question of fact for you to decide.

Did he really win that case, or is he lying again like he did with his criminal threatening case?

Joe lost his appeal and his conviction was affirmed. I will try to PM you the text of the decision.

[cynicalflyer]

Joe lost his appeal and his conviction was affirmed. I will try to PM you the text of the decision.

http://nh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDo ... .NH.htm/qx

The defendant was found guilty by a jury in the Superior Court (Morrill, J.) of the offenses of simple assault, RSA 631:2-a , and resisting arrest, RSA 642:2. The defendant raises three issues on appeal. First, he claims error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that it must consider the conduct and knowledge of the officer's superior, the chief of police. Second, he claims error in the trial court's declining to instruct the jury on the defendant's theory of defense, which entitled him to use force to the extent believed necessary to prevent a reasonably apparent unlawful taking of personal property. Finally, he contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct on jury nullification after receipt of a question from the jury. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

[Pottapaug1938]

If I had read nothing else about Joe Haas and his inability to correctly understand legal concepts, I would have realized that Joe is completely mentally unhinged when I read about his attempt to arrest a cop for "grand theft auto".

Not only that, he attempted to claim the land where the parking lot was located by "adverse possession". Did this Expert On All Matters Legal ever bother to review the five essential elements of adverse possession? Of course not -- he wouldn't be able to wrap his deranged mind around them. Once again, he has discovered Big Words, and proved himself incapable of understanding them or using them correctly.

[Thule]

Joe lost his appeal and his conviction was affirmed. I will try to PM you the text of the decision.

According to the article in the Monitor, Haas was aquitted of assaulting the police chief, but went to jail for fighting with the taxman. I guess this constitutes a victory in Haasland.

[LPC]

Unlikely. That's an absolutely last resort. I'm not saying the judge won't get involved again, but he would be quite loath to strike a defendant's testimony.

I agree that striking the defendant's testimony is highly unlikely, not because I have any actual experience in criminal trials, but just from what I have seen in court opinions leads me to believe that judges give great leeway in allowing defendants to testify (which is as it should be, in my opinion).

But won't the judge allow the prosecution to argue to the jury that Ed's argumentativeness (I checked, and there is such a word) and unwillingness to answer questions undermines his credibility? And a jury may not draw any adverse inferences from a defendant's refusal to testify, but once a defendant takes the stand and waives his 5th Amendment rights, isn't the jury allowed to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's failure to answer, or reluctance to answer, particular questions? Would the judge instruct the jury on that point?

In other words, I think that the judge might not strike the testimony, but he would allow the prosecution to argue to the jury that adverse inferences can be drawn from Ed's behavior and that the testimony is worthless.

[Dezcad]

In other words, I think that the judge might not strike the testimony, but he would allow the prosecution to argue to the jury that adverse inferences can be drawn from Ed's behavior and that the testimony is worthless.

I think I understand your point, Dan, but I wouldn't argue that his testimony is worthless. I would argue that it is very valuable to prove what a self-absorbed, narcissist, anti-authoritarian and disingenuous person that he is.

[LPC]

I just checked the websites created or frequented by Brown supporters to see what kind of reporting or commentary they were posting, and the results were pretty much what I expected: Nothing.

1. MakeTheStand.com (the "Official Website of Ed & Elaine Brown") has nothing about the new trial on the home page (which hasn't been updated since Jan. 8 ) and only one comment in the forum about the new trial, and that's a June 30 comment suggesting that the new trial is a violation of double jeopardy and "fascist.

2. "SHOW US THE INHERENT LAW" (Quest for Fair Trial in Concord, NH) has nothing.

3. TrialLogs.com has nothing.

4. The "New Hamshire Underground" has a "Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS" which has become nothing but all Haas-s**t all the time.

In other words, all the "Brown supporters" have done exactly what all other tax denier "supporters" have ever done, which is lose interest and wander off once the object of their affections is safely imprisoned.

[The Observer]

In other words, all the "Brown supporters" have done exactly what all other tax denier "supporters" have ever done, which is lose interest and wander off once the object of their affections is safely imprisoned.

To be fair, some have shown up in court to testify ostensbily on behalf of the Browns, but end up taking the 5th.