Brown's sentencing

[Dezcad]

The Presentence Conference was held yesterday for the sentencing of the Browns, currently scheduled for 09/30/2009. Docket and the Motion to Withdraw (which was denied) are below:

09/02/2009 200 MOTION for Michael J. Iacopino to Withdraw as Attorney by Edward Brown. Follow up on Objection on 9/21/2009. (Iacopino, Michael) (Entered: 09/02/2009)

09/03/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George Z. Singal: PRESENTENCE CONFERENCE as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown held on 9/3/2009. Order to issue on pending motions prior to 9/30/2009. (Court Reporter: Susan Bateman) (Govt Atty: Arnold Huftalen, Terry Ollila) (Defts Atty: Bjorn Lange, Michael Iacopino) (USP: Kevin Lavigne)(Total Hearing Time: 20 minutes)(CJA Time: 20 minutes) (vln) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

09/03/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George Z. Singal: MOTION HEARING as to Edward Brown held on 9/3/2009 re 200 MOTION for Michael J. Iacopino to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Iacopino heard on motion. Defendant Edward Brown addressed the court. Motion denied. Court granted Attorney Iacopino a week to file objections to Presentence Investigation Report. (Court Reporter: Susan Bateman) (Govt Atty: Arnold Huftalen, Terry Ollila) (Defts Atty: Bjorn Lange, Michael Iacopino) (USP: Kevin Lavigne)(Total Hearing Time: 10 minutes)(CJA Time: 10 minutes) (vln) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

09/03/2009 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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
***********************************************
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
*
v. * No. 09-CR-0030-GZS
*
EDWARD BROWN, Defendant *
***********************************************
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
By: Michael J. Iacopino Esq. (NH 1233)
Brennan Caron Lenehan & Iacopino
85 Brook Street
Manchester N.H. 03104
(603) 668-8300
Miacopino@bclilaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 2, 2009, the above Motion to Withdraw As Counsel was served electronically via ECF on all counsel of record, including Assistant Federal Defender, Bjorn Lange, Assistant United States Attorney, Arnold Huftalen, Assistant United States Attorney, Terry Ollila. s/Michael J. Iacopino

By: Michael J. Iacopino Esq. (NH 1233)

[Demosthenes]

Slow poke.

[Dezcad]

Slow poke.

What was I thinking? Outdone, again.

[Colonel_Buck]

Why in the world would the judge deny the attorney's request to withdraw? Clearly Ed Brown thinks he doesn't need an attorney. Why not indulge him?

[webhick]

Why in the world would the judge deny the attorney's request to withdraw? Clearly Ed Brown thinks he doesn't need an attorney. Why not indulge him?

Maybe because the court has indulged him enough. Look, the only thing new counsel could probably do at this point is file an appeal. Should the government really be responsible for not only getting Ed another lawyer, but also paying for that lawyer to get up to speed on all the evidence and facts in the case after the trial and sentencing are already over? And how much longer does Ed even have for an appeal? Would the new lawyer even have enough time to get caught up and file one timely?

[notorial dissent]

Did I miss something, or has the great motion for new trial based on the imaginary hired operatives of the Marshall’s service gone the way of the rest of the bird cage liner that Ed & Elaine have been filing? I was expecting at least a few loud snickers from the court over it.

[wserra]

Why in the world would the judge deny the attorney's request to withdraw? Clearly Ed Brown thinks he doesn't need an attorney. Why not indulge him?

Largely because of what webhick said. I'm sure the judge sees this as just another delaying tactic, and I'm sure he's right. The only way the Bozo Family gets another lawyer before sentence is for one to appear, ready to proceed. The sentencing has already been adjourned once, and the judge seems pretty determined not to adjourn it again. As far as on appeal goes, BTW, depending on the First Circuit's practices they may or may not get new appellate lawyers as a matter of course. If they do, I could nominate a couple of appropriate candidates.

As far as proceeding pro se, the right to do that under Faretta is not unfettered (intended, lame as it is). Despite the amusement it would have provided us on Q, the Bozos were not pro se through trial, and only as sentencing approached did Mr. Ed decide he couldn't work with his lawyer. The court has ample discretion to decide that he is not sincere.

[LPC]

Did I miss something, or has the great motion for new trial based on the imaginary hired operatives of the Marshall’s service gone the way of the rest of the bird cage liner that Ed & Elaine have been filing? I was expecting at least a few loud snickers from the court over it.

According to a 9/3 docket entry, the court expects to rule on all pending motions by 9/30, which is also the date for sentencing.

[LPC]

And how much longer does Ed even have for an appeal? Would the new lawyer even have enough time to get caught up and file one timely?

My understanding is that the time within which to file an appeal doesn't even start to run until after sentencing, which is now scheduled for 9/30.

[webhick]

And how much longer does Ed even have for an appeal? Would the new lawyer even have enough time to get caught up and file one timely?

My understanding is that the time within which to file an appeal doesn't even start to run until after sentencing, which is now scheduled for 9/30.

My bad. I was under the impression that they've already been sentenced. I should probably learn to double-check what I post and what-not, but what fun would that be?

[Nikki]

And how much longer does Ed even have for an appeal? Would the new lawyer even have enough time to get caught up and file one timely?

My understanding is that the time within which to file an appeal doesn't even start to run until after sentencing, which is now scheduled for 9/30.

My bad. I was under the impression that they've already been sentenced. I should probably learn to double-check what I post and what-not, but what fun would that be?

I thought that was the responsibility of the interns and that their failure to do so was their tacit acceptance of one of the prescribed disciplines.

[webhick]

My bad. I was under the impression that they've already been sentenced. I should probably learn to double-check what I post and what-not, but what fun would that be?

I thought that was the responsibility of the interns and that their failure to do so was their tacit acceptance of one of the prescribed disciplines.

I don't let them view anything on Quatloos. I wouldn't want their tiny little brains to work extra hard at going through the registration, login, and posting processes in a feeble attempt to cry out for help. Well...that's not entirely true. I will sometimes let one or two try it if only for the entertainment value in watching their brains escape out their eyesockets.

[fortinbras]

Although the actual sentencing takes place at the end of the month, barring something really spectacular -- like the landing of the NESARA spaceships on the White House lawn, the Browns will each get the sentence mandated by explicit statute of 30 years for the explosives.

[Nikki]

They can only hope for two positive results:

- That all the sentences will be concurrent, not consecutive.

- That the Bureau of Prisons will put them somewhere other than a major league hellhole.

[.]

Ed is 67. On the release date for his current sentence (05-24-12) he'll be 70. 30 years with no good-time makes him 100. In the unlikely event that he behaved himself and would be released at 85%, he'd be 95.

It would seem rather unlikely that concurrency will make any difference.

[notorial dissent]

Ed is 67. On the release date for his current sentence (05-24-12) he'll be 70. 30 years with no good-time makes him 100. In the unlikely event that he behaved himself and would be released at 85%, he'd be 95.

It would seem rather unlikely that concurrency will make any difference.

My bet, based on past behavior, is that Ed, and Elaine for that matter, will not behave, will find some new and even stupider way of shooting themselves in the foot, that will almost certainly guarantee an unhappy outcome. I expect that they will spend their final days in close confinement as problem inmates until they ultimately end up in the prison geriatric ward waiting to die.

They can only hope for two positive results:

- That all the sentences will be concurrent, not consecutive.

- That the Bureau of Prisons will put them somewhere other than a major league hellhole.

See my above comment. I think they have long ago run out of that kind of consideration.

I am guessing that at this point the judge has at long last run out of patience and is just going to deal with all their nonsense at one time since it doesn’t merit any other reaction. I have to believe that if there were any merit to any of their multitudinous petitions that they would be addressed well before sentencing, and since it has all been set to one day, it would seem there is nothing to do other than dismiss them and proceed to the sentencing, which would seem to be a pretty far gone conclusion at this point.

Does anyone know if the gov’t has asked for concurrent or consecutive sentencing at this point, or is that left to the judge’s discretion? Any idea on what the total year count could end up as?

[.]

Does anyone know if the gov’t has asked for concurrent or consecutive sentencing at this point, or is that left to the judge’s discretion? Any idea on what the total year count could end up as?

The government almost always has a recommendation. Doesn't much matter as it's entirely in the discretion of the judge. Most (certainly not all) judges seem to run sentences concurrently for all acts in a single criminal episode. You rob a bank. In the course of doing that you assault someone. Probably concurrent. If you robbed another bank 2 days later, the robbery sentences would probably be consecutive.

Ed is in the jug until at least age 95 no matter how you slice it.

Count 1. 6 years. Conspiracy to prevent by force, intimidation or threats officers of the United States from discharging their duties in carrying out the arrests of Edward Brown and Elaine Brown.

Count 2. 8 years. Conspiracy to forcibly resist and impede federal law enforcement officers in the discharge of their duties in carrying out the arrests of Edward Brown and Elaine Brown by means including the use of dangerous and deadly weapons.

Counts 3 and 4. Life [mandatory 30 years minimum] each count. Carrying and possessing firearms and destructive devices in connection with and in furtherance of crimes of violence.

Counts 5 and 6. 10 years each count. Possession of firearms after having been convicted of a felony.

Counts 7 and 8. 10 years each count. Obstruction of justice.

Count 9. 5 years. Failure to appear for trial.

Counts 10 and 11. 5 years each count. Failure to appear for sentencing in April 2007 following their convictions on tax and other charges in U.S. District Court in January 2007.

Total maximum consecutive sentence: Two life terms plus 69 years.

His best outcome is all of this stuff is considered to be one very long criminal episode (I doubt it will be) and he effectively gets one 30 year sentence, everything else running concurrent.

Even one 5-year consecutive sentence will add years to his best-case scenario of age 95.5 and two or three would put him well over age 100. Never mind what a couple of 10-year consecutive sentences would do.

Of course, if he gets life on either of the two possible life counts, that's it. Life means life in the federal system and it doesn't matter what happens on any other counts.

Ed's self-cooked goose is well and truly done.

[notorial dissent]

Thank you, that is about what I thought, but I felt like I had missed something here in the middle for some reason. As I see it, it is going to be a life sentence one way or another, and since neither of them have done anything to mitigate or even try to avoid adding to things, I just don’t see them getting any kind of leniency, not that they deserve it either. Still, amazing what just sheer stupid can do for/to you.

[wserra]

amazing what just sheer stupid can do for/to you.

Put somewhat more classically, "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens". ("Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.") Friedrich von Schiller.

Put somewhat less classically, "What a maroon". Bugs von Bunny.

[fortinbras]

It doesn't matter much if the govt asks for, or the Browns receive, concurrent sentences. That 30 years mandated under the explosives law, all by itself, either has them dying in prison or shortly after release. This was entirely their own folly; other tax dodgers have managed to resist the temptation to reach for dynamite and assault weapons.