Brown Trial, Part IV

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

In law, all laws must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man. ...

Nice idea, but I don't see that codified anywhere; it would take 1,000 pages of hopelessly convoluted legal gibberish to make it the law of the land.

[Famspear]

... In law, all laws must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man. ...

Ah, yes, another in the seemingly endless series known as the Tax Protester's Imaginary Rules of Law.....

Here are some corresponding imaginary rules:

In dentistry, all dentistry must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man. ...

In elementary particle physics, all elementary particle physics must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man. ...

In the general theory of relativity, all the general theory of relativity must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man. ...

In brain surgery, all brain surgery must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man. ...



This woman actually believes that there is a "law" somewhere that requires that all laws must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man? It is a bit astonishing that a woman possessing the intelligence and drive to have been able to earn the degree of doctor of dental surgery would entertain such a stupid idea.

Naive?

[Paul]

And evenwhen lawmakers try, it doesn't work out very well. From the newly-enacted Illinois Plain Language Task Force Act (PA 95-360) (turn off irony meters now):

Section 10. Definition. As used in this Act:
"Plain language" has the same meaning ascribed to it in the Executive Memorandum of the President of the United States, mandating that Federal Agencies and Federal Administrative
Rules employ plain language, issued June 1, 1998, namely that "plain language" documents have logical organization, easy-to-read design features, and use: (i) common, everyday words, except for necessary technical terms; (ii) "you" and other pronouns; (iii) the active voice; and (iv) short sentences.

(emphasis added)

[Prof]

While the "sovereigns" prattle about "common law," none seem to realize that the common law has largely been replaced by codification of the law. See, for example, the UCC, art. 2 of which largely replaces contract law dealing with the sale of goods, or the various criminal codes of the states. The reason for codification was to make the law easier to find and understand. Finding out what the common law was, as to any given subject, required the reading of commentaries, cases, more recent cases, dissents, etc., in order to distill what the reader thought a judge might rule given the facts of a particular situtation. Then, just when you thought you had the answer, some state Supreme Court somewhere, and not necessarily in your jurisdiction, decided to rework the law to get to a better place (i.e., a better result for one of the litigants).

Of course, simplification and codification are not necessarily the same things, and lawyers and legislators seem to find simplification a difficult task.

[Nikki]

The soverignoramuses are also adamant about adhering only to the common law AND equally opposed to judges "legislating from the bench."

It's a shame they don't have a clue.

[notorial dissent]

Let’s also not forget, that the reason it was called “common law” in the first place was that it WAS NOT written down, it was based on LOCAL tradition and/or usage, and varied widely from place to place, and in the final analysis was what whoever was interpreting it decided it was, in other words neither common-as in consistent throughout the country, or law as there was no actual proof that there was even such a law unless someone “remembered” it, and was not equally enforced anywhere.

Thus the rise of statute law so that it was equal and consistent throughout the realm.

[wserra]

Back on topic: I think Judge Singal is getting tired of the BS.

08/20/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George Z. Singal: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown held on 8/20/2009. ORAL ORDER denying 194 Assented to MOTION to Continue Sentencing by Elaine Brown

I've seen denials of consent adjournments to sentencings before, but not very often.

[Dezcad]

Sentencing has now been rescheduled to 9/30/2009 09:00 AM. And 2 more frivolous, meaningless filings by the Browns.

08/24/2009 197 MOTION to Continue SENTENCING for Thirty Days by Edward Brown. Follow up on Objection on 9/11/2009. (Iacopino, Michael) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
08/24/2009 198 NOTICE of Revocation of Power of Attorney & Signatures by Edward Brown. (dae) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
08/24/2009 199 NOTICE of Revocation of Power of Attorney & Signatures by Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
08/25/2009 ENDORSED ORDER granting 197 MOTION to Continue SENTENCING for Thirty Days as to Edward Brown (1). Text of Order: Granted. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. Sentencing reset for 9/30/2009 09:00 AM (from 9/3/09) before Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
08/25/2009 NOTICE OF SENTENCING HEARING RESCHEDULED as to Elaine Brown: Sentencing reset for 9/30/2009 09:00 AM (from 9/3/09) before Judge George Z. Singal.(dae) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
08/25/2009 NOTICE OF PRESENTENCE CONFERENCE as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown: Presentence Conference set for 9/3/2009 09:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal, USDC-NH, Room 421. (dae) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

[Joey Smith]

Elaine Brown wrote:
... In law, all laws must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man. ...

If she doesn't understand how the electronic ignition in her car works, does that mean she will not attempt to drive it?

In a sense, tax protesting is a cry of the Luddites like Stevie who long for the old agrarian ways of the 1700s, never minding that society has advanced (or declined, take your pick) well beyond that.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

...

In law, all laws must be clear, concise, and able to be understood by the average man. ...

Nice idea, but I don't see that codified anywhere; it would take 1,000 pages of hopelessly convoluted legal gibberish to make it the law of the land.

What I find interesting about Elaine's demand is that from a non-lawyer point of view (me), the basic income tax codes (61, 63, 6012, & 6151) seem to be relatively straight forward.

My personal theory on "legalese" simply stated is this: Legal writing first began when a large percentage of the populous was illiterate. At that time, and especially as people became increasingly literate, "legalese" served as a form of job security for legal professionals. There's no derision attempted here, just an observation. Now, several of you lawyers will likely promptly show me why I'm wrong.

[Pottapaug1938]

My personal theory on "legalese" simply stated is this: Legal writing first began when a large percentage of the populous was illiterate. At that time, and especially as people became increasingly literate, "legalese" served as a form of job security for legal professionals. There's no derision attempted here, just an observation. Now, several of you lawyers will likely promptly show me why I'm wrong.

"Legalese" has three sources. In days of old, the nobility in England spoke French while the lower classes spoke English; and legal writs often had to include words in both languages to make the meaning clear (such as "force and effect"). Then, there was the need to trigger a legal statute by using certain words (such as "I give, grant, bargain, sell and convey unto A and his heirs", in a real estate deed, or "I give, devise and bequeath" in a will). Failure to use those "magic words" invalidated the document (and this explains why so many TP types, who have never learned of the legal reforms which did away with the need to use magic words, often get so hung up on them today -- such as when they demand to be shown a law that makes them "liable" to pay income tax). Finally, we can blame our old friends, the medieval writ writers, who got paid by the word. Ever wonder why so many legal documents are so long-winded? Tradition, my friends....

[Duke2Earl]

I think any highly technical profession has it's own "language." Doctors. lawyers, engineers, scientists, architects... you name it. I can't even understand the marketing professionals in my firm who seem to change jargon and acronyms almost daily. I don't really think it's so much a plot to keep others from understanding so much as it seems to be a shorthand for communicating with others in the same field.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Well, that didn't take long. Thanks for the historical background pottapaug. duke2earl: I have to agree with a unique lexicon being integral with any technical profession. I've migrated across a few professions in my working career and learning and properly using the lexicon has been a large part of the learning curve.

I've inadvertently diverted the thread topic. Wandering back to my first observation: as lawyers, would you all agree that the statutes I noted above are relatively plainly written?

[Imalawman]

Well, that didn't take long. Thanks for the historical background pottapaug. duke2earl: I have to agree with a unique lexicon being integral with any technical profession. I've migrated across a few professions in my working career and learning and properly using the lexicon has been a large part of the learning curve.

I've inadvertently diverted the thread topic. Wandering back to my first observation: as lawyers, would you all agree that the statutes I noted above are relatively plainly written?

Yes.

[Quixote]

Well, that didn't take long. Thanks for the historical background pottapaug. duke2earl: I have to agree with a unique lexicon being integral with any technical profession. I've migrated across a few professions in my working career and learning and properly using the lexicon has been a large part of the learning curve.

I've inadvertently diverted the thread topic. Wandering back to my first observation: as lawyers, would you all agree that the statutes I noted above are relatively plainly written?

Yes.

And the IRS publications and instructions are plainer still. It takes a lot of work to misunderstand the 1040EZ.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Well, that didn't take long. Thanks for the historical background pottapaug. duke2earl: I have to agree with a unique lexicon being integral with any technical profession. I've migrated across a few professions in my working career and learning and properly using the lexicon has been a large part of the learning curve.

I've inadvertently diverted the thread topic. Wandering back to my first observation: as lawyers, would you all agree that the statutes I noted above are relatively plainly written?

Yes.

Well, at least I got one thing right on this thread.

[Paul]

That's two.

[Demosthenes]

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

Now Comes Michael J. Iacopino and respectfully moves to withdraw as counsel for the Defendant Edward Brown.

In support of this motion Attorney Iacopino submits as follows:

1. I was appointed by the Court, first as standby counsel for the Defendant, and thereafter as trial counsel. I represented the Defendant throughout trial. On the first day of testimony I moved to withdraw as counsel based upon a breakdown in the attorney client relationship. That motion was denied.

2, The Defendant was convicted of all charges. Sentencing is presently scheduled for September 30, 2009.

3. On August 24, 2009, I met with the Defendant at the Strafford County House of Correction for the purpose of reviewing the pending probation report. The Defendant left that meeting without any substantive discussion of the report itself or possible objections.

4. On August 31, 2009, I again went to see the Defendant at the Strafford County House of Correction with the hopes of reviewing the pending probation report. The Defendant refused to come to the visiting room to meet with me. The correctional officer on duty advised that the Defendant refused the visit and had told her that he “does not have a lawyer.”

5. Without explanation, the Defendant refuses to communicate with me and I cannot effectively represent his interest without communication.

6. The attorney client relationship has deteriorated to the point where the Defendant will not discuss the case with me.

7. Because this motion concerns the attorney client relationship, I have not sought the assent of the Government nor do I believe that they have standing to object to the relief requested herein.

WHEREFORE, I hereby respectfully move this Court permit me to withdraw as counsel for the Defendant and to appoint new counsel who can effectively represent the Defendant’s interest at sentencing.

Date: September 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted
EDWARD BROWN by his counsel,
Brennan Caron Lenehan & Iacopino
/s/Michael J. Iacopino

ORAL ORDER denying 200 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney as to Edward Brown (1). Text of Order: Denied. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (vln) (Entered: 09/03/2009)