Latest on the :Brown Appeal

[Nikki]

The only reason Ed:ConstitutionalRanger would end up in a psych facility would be that his defense counsel (and the preponderance of psycholigical testimony) proves that he was legally insane at the time that he committed the alleged crimes.

That hurdle is so high as to be, in Ed:Loudmouth's case, insurmountable.

There is a significant difference between being a narcissistic, anti-government, irrational blowhard and being legally not mentally responsible for one's actions.

[DeanStowers]

Boy, the cynicism here is a bit much. First, Nikki, I have no ulterior motive to put another notch in my belt. I am trying to do my best as his lawyer and legal representative to get him a different outcome than he currently has before him. That is my job, and most days I enjoy it quite much, notwithstanding people like you who don't understand what lawyers do. Second, if he has a chance at a new trial, after a competency hearing, the trial will likely be conducted significantly differently than the first. Retrials after conviction usually work to a defendant's advantage. Third, if Mr. Brown gets his convictions reopened, there is no telling what might be worked out on his case with the government that might allow him a chance at freedom in his lifetime. The outcome here is pretty absurd and excessively severe for the circumstances and should be ameliorated.

[Lambkin]

Welcome to Quatloos, Dean. I am very interested in what you have to say about the Brown appeal. Glad to see crazy Ed has a lawyer too, although he'll probably put an end to that before too long now.

[Demosthenes]

Mr. Brown's appeal is largely premised upon the issue of the failure to conduct a competency hearing when we believe the record discloses it reasonably appeared that Ed's behavior and conduct were such that the court should have reasonably questioned his competency.

I'm confused. Ed had a 30 day psych evaluation and a competency hearing prior to sentencing (in other words, prior to final judgment.) I attended the hearing and nothing I heard there surprised me much.

Ed's behavior and conduct during the trial (I attended that too) were not particularly unusual for a sovereign citizen at trial, and most federal judges see such "patriot" antics on a regular basis.

[wserra]

Let's assume you manage to convince the appellate court that Ed is a total nut case, should have had a formal competency hearing, and most likely would have been found to not be competent to represent himself.

So what? Other than scoring another notch on your belt, what have you gained?

You've won the appeal. That's your job, that's your obligation, and that's what the Court appointed you to do.

You're wrong on this one, Nikki. It is decidedly not a lawyer's role - trial or appellate - to decide what's best for a client. As you and "." quite correctly say, Brown will likely find himself in the same position following a successful appeal as he is now. But it won't be worse. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969). Assuming that Brown wishes to continue - as virtually anyone in his situation would, since he has little to lose - it's Stowers' obligation to do his best. There is no evidence that Stowers acted with any motivation other than this, and it's unfair of you to impugn his motives without evidence. I think he has a rosy view of the odds of a successful appeal making a difference, but so what? He's an advocate, and he's right about the possibilities, if not the probabilities.

What would you have appellate counsel do - tell Ed to go fuck himself? I don't think the First Circuit would approve, even though it will very likely affirm. The First Circuit can tell Ed to take a flying leap, but Stowers can't.

Retrials after conviction usually work to a defendant's advantage.

I would say "occasionally" rather than "usually". Still, any port in a storm.

if Mr. Brown gets his convictions reopened, there is no telling what might be worked out on his case with the government that might allow him a chance at freedom in his lifetime.

That's what I see as the real point. Reversals frequently result in an improved sentence through a plea. Not that Brown would plead, but - again - that's not Stowers' fault. He does what he can.

The outcome here is pretty absurd and excessively severe for the circumstances and should be ameliorated.

That I don't agree with, but Stowers is Brown's lawyer. We can make allowances.

[Demosthenes]

Third, if Mr. Brown gets his convictions reopened, there is no telling what might be worked out on his case with the government that might allow him a chance at freedom in his lifetime. The outcome here is pretty absurd and excessively severe for the circumstances and should be ameliorated.

Had to laugh out loud at this bit. You weren't around during Ed's standoff, when he repeatedly threatened to murder three judges, their children, a prosecutor, a sheriff, the US Marshal, various members of the press, and anyone else he deemed to be an enemy-o'-Ed. You also didn't see the mountain of bomb evidence and those wicked-big 50 caliber guns designed to literally blow US Marshals to bits. Ed's sentence is dead-on appropriate. He is a menace to society.

[Nikki]

Whatever.

Stowers may not have an axe to grind or an ulterior motive. But he really should take off his rose-colored glasses as to the possible efficacy of his advocacy.

He is dealing with a sociopath who cares about nothing other than himself; a man who was prepared to murder his own wife-of-convenience just to give himself an excuse to kill other people; a man who brought at least four other people into his web of paranoia and then cast them aside without a second thought once they ceased to be useful to him.

Stowers might -- when it freezes over -- get the conviction reversed. There won't be any plea bargain; a mandatory 30 year sentence is somewhat hard to sidestep especially when the prosecution is very comfortable with its case.

The only thing Stowers might accomplish is to get Ed out of prison long enough for him to attend the trial until he loses it in court again.

As an aside, is it possible for someone on the panel of attorneys to be appointed to represent indigents to say "No thank you. I decline to defend sociopathic anarchists." ?

[fortinbras]

I will credit Mr. Stowers, who evidently has a track record in criminal law, with realizing that his client (Ed Brown) is not functioning on all cylinders, may well be lying to everyone including himself, and so forth. One of the painful realities of criminal law is that, unlike the cases on TV, the clients are so seldom innocent pillars of the community. It takes a certain kind of lawyer to give such clients the best defense, something to which they are entitled no matter how many sins weigh down their souls.

[Gregg]

I will credit Mr. Stowers, who evidently has a track record in criminal law, with realizing that his client (Ed Brown) is not functioning on all cylinders, may well be lying to everyone including himself, and so forth. One of the painful realities of criminal law is that, unlike the cases on TV, the clients are so seldom innocent pillars of the community. It takes a certain kind of lawyer to give such clients the best defense, something to which they are entitled no matter how many sins weigh down their souls.

I would agree with that, and I also think Ed:Family moron is entitled to a good lawyer. the problem I see is Ed will not tolerate a good lawyer, I doubt he'd put up long with a bad one. Ed will not long allow anyone to argue on his behalf that he's incompetent, I predict that before this is over Ed is calling for the faithful to harass that latest government stooge the court is trying to force upon him in order to railroad him to prison....

[fortinbras]

This sort of insane behavior towards the lawyers who take on his cases will soon assure Ed that no lawyer will touch him. Such defendants are rare (McVeigh was widely hated and defending him did carry a stigma, but there were lawyers - good ones - willing to take up the challenge), and I feel instinctively {against what they teach in law school} that they've pretty well exhausted their Constitutional right to assistance of counsel.

[Imalawman]

This sort of insane behavior towards the lawyers who take on his cases will soon assure Ed that no lawyer will touch him. Such defendants are rare (McVeigh was widely hated and defending him did carry a stigma, but there were lawyers - good ones - willing to take up the challenge), and I feel intinctively that they've pretty well exhausted their Constitutional right to assistance of counsel.

Everyone is entitled to the very best legal defense possible. It's not the lawyer's place to admit that his client is a moron. However, it's probably also not a good idea to post on an internet forum about the case you're working on either.

Ed deserves every bit of the sentence he received. I certainly hope that he never gets out of prison. Maybe next time he'll be able to kill the people he wanted.

[webhick]

Everyone is entitled to the very best legal defense possible. It's not the lawyer's place to admit that his client is a moron. However, it's probably also not a good idea to post on an internet forum about the case you're working on either.

Especially since after Ed fires him for trying to do his job, he may be more likely to vent on said internet forum. Which, while entertaining, also wouldn't be such a great idea.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... As an aside, is it possible for someone on the panel of attorneys to be appointed to represent indigents to say "No thank you. I decline to defend sociopathic anarchists." ?

No.

[wserra]

... As an aside, is it possible for someone on the panel of attorneys to be appointed to represent indigents to say "No thank you. I decline to defend sociopathic anarchists." ?

No.

That is indeed the short answer. The somewhat longer answer is yes, one can decline on those grounds. One can decline on any grounds. However, those particular grounds could lead to the conclusion that one's devotion to the principles of the Sixth Amendment is less than optimal, and one's membership on the panel might be short-lived.

A result I agree with, BTW.

[Pottapaug1938]

The issue of legal representation for Ed :Moron reminds me of a time when I was still practicing law, and I represented a woman in a divorce case. My client was, shall I say, a "piece of work". Among the things which she liked to do is raise her ex's support checks, because "they weren't enough". After a conference in my office, where I looked her in her mascara-streaked face and told her that she was not -- under any circumstances -- to do that ever again while she was my client, she promised up and down that she wouldn't.

Well, you all can guess what happened the next week. I found out via a phone call from the ex's lawyer; and he assured me that neither he nor any member of the bar would take it as an indication of unfitness to practice law if I was compelled, by the court, to continue to represent this woman. Luckily, my motion to withdraw was approved. I would imagine that the way Stowers represents :Brown will have a lot to do with maintaining his reputation -- if he gives indications that he has drunk the sovrun Fool-Aid, that's one thing; but if it's clear that he is simply zealously representing his client, as he is bound to do, his reputation will remain intact, as mine did.

[wserra]

I represented a woman in a divorce case. My client was, shall I say, a "piece of work".

You represented a "piece of work" client in a divorce? Damn, son, all clients in divorce cases are pieces of work. It goes with the divorce.

Hell, I've represented rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, Methodists and the occasional terrorist. Hasn't affected my reputation.

Wait a second. That didn't come out exactly the way I intended.

[Nikki]

But, did they bring enough gum for everyone?

[webhick]

Hell, I've represented rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, sh*t-kickers, Methodists and the occasional terrorist. Hasn't affected my reputation

I didn't know you represented my brother-in-law.

ETA: You forgot to mention furniture.

[The Observer]

Hell, I've represented rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, sh*t-kickers, Methodists and the occasional terrorist.

No pirates? You don't get my vote of my respect until I see you defending some authentic swashbuckling scurvy dogs from the Spanish Main.

[Famspear]

Hell, I've represented rustlers, cut throats, murderers.....bank robbers, ass-kickers, sh*t-kickers, Methodists.....

Methodists?

Methodists? Heavens man, have you no standards at all???!!!?



-(signed) grandson of a Methodist minister