Ed and Elaine Brown: Notice to Judge

[Demosthenes]

I dunno, I can't square "unlawful government force" with the very restrained actions of the Marshals and the fact that they were at the time resisting being taken into very lawful custody.

I read the defense's request for any and all info on the Danny the Dogwalker incident as being the hook from which they are going to hang their hat, as best as they can. If they can spin the firing of bullets on that day to her state of mind, they have a sliver of a possible chance of a hung jury, at least on some of the charges.

And even though the Marshals testified under oath that the only bullets fired that day were non-lethal rounds, Danny (and therefore Elaine) wouldn't have known that. Heck, he still doesn't believe it today.

I wonder when Bob Wolffe was approached by Ed and Elaine to secure a pistol for Elaine...

[LPC]

I read the defense's request for any and all info on the Danny the Dogwalker incident as being the hook from which they are going to hang their hat, as best as they can. If they can spin the firing of bullets on that day to her state of mind, they have a sliver of a possible chance of a hung jury, at least on some of the charges.

And even though the Marshals testified under oath that the only bullets fired that day were non-lethal rounds, Danny (and therefore Elaine) wouldn't have known that. Heck, he still doesn't believe it today.

Wasn't DD released after he was questioned?

So the only "evidence" that the Browns have that there were going to be murdered in their beds is the capture (and release) of a supporter who himself was completely unharmed?

That's just one of the problems I see in trying to convince a jury that the Browns were somehow justified in the acquisition and construction of weapons.

Problem #1 is that the Browns knew that they could surrender at any time, so if they were concerned for their safety all they had to do was walk out and surrender.

Another problem is that booby-traps and IEDs can't distinguish between U.S. Marshals carrying non-lethal weapons and U.S. Marshals carrying lethal weapons. The Browns were preparing to kill any government official that attempted entry regardless of how they were equipped or the nature of their intentions.

And what about the weapons that were acquired or constructed before the DD incident?

There's always the possibility of someone out of the mainstream getting on the jury and blocking acquittal, but a jury of relatively normal people will ignore the Browns' excuses and will convict if the evidence is there.

[LPC]

I have a personal friend who successfully defended himself in a Federal Court against the illegal taxation of his personal income by the Federal Government .

Doesn't mean squat unless there is proof to back up your claim. In other words, provide the case citation so we can look it up.

I guess jimni suddenly remembered he had urgent business elsewhere.

[Demosthenes]

I read the defense's request for any and all info on the Danny the Dogwalker incident as being the hook from which they are going to hang their hat, as best as they can. If they can spin the firing of bullets on that day to her state of mind, they have a sliver of a possible chance of a hung jury, at least on some of the charges.

And even though the Marshals testified under oath that the only bullets fired that day were non-lethal rounds, Danny (and therefore Elaine) wouldn't have known that. Heck, he still doesn't believe it today.

Wasn't DD released after he was questioned?

So the only "evidence" that the Browns have that there were going to be murdered in their beds is the capture (and release) of a supporter who himself was completely unharmed?

That's just one of the problems I see in trying to convince a jury that the Browns were somehow justified in the acquisition and construction of weapons.

Problem #1 is that the Browns knew that they could surrender at any time, so if they were concerned for their safety all they had to do was walk out and surrender.

Another problem is that booby-traps and IEDs can't distinguish between U.S. Marshals carrying non-lethal weapons and U.S. Marshals carrying lethal weapons. The Browns were preparing to kill any government official that attempted entry regardless of how they were equipped or the nature of their intentions.

And what about the weapons that were acquired or constructed before the DD incident?

There's always the possibility of someone out of the mainstream getting on the jury and blocking acquittal, but a jury of relatively normal people will ignore the Browns' excuses and will convict if the evidence is there.

True, true, and true. But it's all the defense lawyer's got.

And I think the odds of getting someone "outside of the mainstream" is a bit higher in New Hampshire than elsewhere.

Seriously guys, do you think the defense lawyer's job is to roll over and play dead?

[Dezcad]

While I think the current strategy of E&E's defense counsel has only a very slight chance of prevailing, it is light years better than either E&E's "strawman/admiralty/UCC" defense or anything cooked up by Joe "counsel of choice" Haas, especially his non-filing argument.

Any chance is better than no chance.

[LPC]

True, true, and true. But it's all the defense lawyer's got.

I agree, and I wasn't intending to be critical of the defense lawyers, but just pointing out the counter-arguments that the government should make, and why those arguments are more persuasive.

But it could work, because a similar argument worked for Wesley Snipes to explain why he didn't file income tax returns after he was told he was under criminal investigation. It wasn't really a good defense, but the jury apparently bought it.

And getting some sympathy/understanding from the jury might help get a "compromise verdict" and avoid conviction on some of the more serious charges.

[Gregg]

What are the chances that the government would drop the explosives charge against Elaine if she pled to a few charges? At least there might be a chance she won't spend the rest of her life in prison that way?

I do know, that the chances of her doing this are about as likely as Zaldar the Magnifficent landing on the White House lawn, but is is possible?

[Judge Roy Bean]

So the only "evidence" that the Browns have that there were going to be murdered in their beds is the capture (and release) of a supporter who himself was completely unharmed?

I think you underestimate the theory counsel is following in terms of their client's alleged "fear" and particularly how they came to be fearful. Evidence, schmevidence - it's all about empathy. Their whacky anti-government stance will be elevated to the status of internalized beliefs and the resultant persecution for holding them.

That's just one of the problems I see in trying to convince a jury that the Browns were somehow justified in the acquisition and construction of weapons.

Problem #1 is that the Browns knew that they could surrender at any time, so if they were concerned for their safety all they had to do was walk out and surrender.

Actually, the reverse is true - given their allegedly deep-seated fear and mistrust for the system, surrender to a large and heavily armed force with a history of violent events (not just acquiring specialized military weapons, but using them in assaults that resulted in the death of civilians) would be counter-intuitive for them.

Another problem is that booby-traps and IEDs can't distinguish between U.S. Marshals carrying non-lethal weapons and U.S. Marshals carrying lethal weapons. The Browns were preparing to kill any government official that attempted entry regardless of how they were equipped or the nature of their intentions.

The theory in defensive positions where the opponent significantly outnumbers your forces is that you have to level the playing field with anything and everything at your disposal.

And what about the weapons that were acquired or constructed before the DD incident?

I don't think timing is an issue in this situation. The construction of the fortification itself represents a situation where the Browns had long-standing concern that they were eventually going to have to defend themselves - from, you guessed it - the ebil gubment.

There's always the possibility of someone out of the mainstream getting on the jury and blocking acquittal, but a jury of relatively normal people will ignore the Browns' excuses and will convict if the evidence is there.

I'll only add that voir dire is going to get really, really interesting.

[Demosthenes]

I think you underestimate the theory counsel is following in terms of their client's alleged "fear" and particularly how they came to be fearful. Evidence, schmevidence - it's all about empathy. Their whacky anti-government stance will be elevated to the status of internalized beliefs and the resultant persecution for holding them.

What JRB says makes sense. I think the defense is trying to put both Waco and Ruby Ridge on trial. In their motion for discovery, they wanted the DOJ to tell them which Waco and Ruby Ridge materials were found in the Brown home at the time of the arrest.

Ed's plans for violence, however, weren't limited to the use of defensive force. He wanted hits put out on two judge's, their children, an IRS agent, and a prosecutor, none of whom would be in the group of armed feds coming on to his land to arrest him. Ed wanted revenge killings.

Remember this pre-Dogwalker-Day gem?

This is the beginning of one very huge movement. I’m not quite sure you understand the ramifications of what’s going on right now. This is massive. This is international. We are fed up with the Zionist Illuminati. That’s what this is all about. Loud and clear. Zionist Illuminati. Lawyers, whatever they are, ok, it’s going to stop. And if the judge is a member of that, I know that McAuliffe is, I know that US Attorney Colantuono is, they’d better stop. This is a warning. You can do whatever you want to me. My job is to get the message out and I’m getting the message out, and I’m warning you guys (not you guys [referring to the show hosts]) - them - to cease and desist their unlawful activity in this country and every other country because once this thing starts, we’re going to seek ‘em out and hunt them down. And we’re going to bring them to justice. So anybody wishes to join them, you go right ahead and join them. But I promise you, long after I’m gone, they’re going to seek out every one of you and your bloodline.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

And I think the odds of getting someone "outside of the mainstream" is a bit higher in New Hampshire than elsewhere.

You say that like that is a bad thing.