Brown's sentencing

[Gregg]

Did I ever tell you guys about Ed's cross-dressing tendencies???

Okay, for that you owe me a new keyboard and I think you're morally obligated to at least help pay for the therapy I'm gonna need to get that vision out of my head.

[Prof]

I saw Ed once on "Jerry Springer"-- he was wearing a lovely a-line and medium heels. He was on a panel with Weston White and DMVP. They were discussing the reality of the alternate realities each inhabited, but all claimed to be living there with the same Penthouse Pet (TM).

[Dezcad]

Latest in the Brown saga:

09/11/2009 204 MOTION for Order to Determine Competency to Stand Trial And For Ancillary Relief by Edward Brown. Follow up on Objection on 9/28/2009. (Iacopino, Michael) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
**************************************************
*
UNITED STATES **
V. * Criminal No. 09-CR-0030-GZS
*
EDWARD BROWN **
**************************************************
MOTION FOR COMPETENCY EVALUATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 4241 AND FOR ANCILLARY RELIEF
NOW COMES Michael J. Iacopino, Esq., counsel for the Defendant Edward Brown, and respectfully moves this Court to order that the Defendant, be evaluated for his competency to be sentenced, and that said evaluation take place within the District of New Hampshire. Attorney Iacopino also seeks ancillary relief in the form of funds for services other than counsel to hire a forensic psychiatrist to assist Attorney Iacopino is dealng with issues raised by the Defendant’s mental state.
IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING, Counsel submits as follows:
1. The Defendant is 67 years of age and was convicted of numerous felonies after trial in the above matter and faces a potential sentence in excess of forty years.
2. Initially in this matter the Defendant refused all efforts of counsel to assist him in preparation of a defense. Eventually, the Defendant and his Co-Defendant filed a pleading with the Court that appeared to indicate that they would accept the assignment of counsel. The Court appointed the undersigned as counsel.
3. Although a difficult relationship ensued throughout the appointment and trial of this matter the Defendant was minimally able to assist counsel in the preparation and presentation of a defense. However, that has now dramatically changed. The Defendant has reverted to his former intransigence and reliance on matters that can only be referred to as delusions. This is evidenced by his recent pro se pleadings as well as by the pro se filings that he has made in the past in this matter. Most recently the Defendant exhibited his delusional thought patterns when he claimed in open court that we were operating under “English” law and that the same people who killed innocents at Auschwitz were running our country today. Before speaking about these things the Defendant in open court made sure to assert that he was a “secured party creditor and not a surety.”
4. It appears to undersigned counsel that the Defendant is acting under diminished capacity and likely suffers from a delusional disorder with both paranoid and grandiose features. A delusional disorder is a major mental defect or disease, and is characterized in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual - IV (DSM-IV), along with schizophrenia and other psychotic mental defects. The DSM-IV identifies delusional disorder as a mental illness whose essential feature is “the presence of one or more non-bizarre delusions that persist for at least one month.” A delusion is defined as “false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture.” Delusional disorder is grouped with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Undersigned counsel believes that the Defendant may suffer from this major mental defect or disease.
5. In the past the Defendant has exhibited other delusions including; a belief that the United States Government is secretly in bankruptcy and being operated by the UBS Corporation and that this bankruptcy has been in existence since 1931; a belief that the Constitution of the Untied States was suspended or revoked in 1861 when Congress adjourned without a date to reform and certain southern states seceded from the union - an event referred to as “sine die;” that “commercial law” is the only true law.
6. The Defendant has filed numerous pleadings and notices with this Court, all of which are clearly based upon his delusions pertaining to the source of law and government.
7. It appears that the Defendant’s mental state has deteriorated to the point where he now will not communicate with counsel rendering him incapable pof assisting counsel in the sentencing process.
8. Counsel respectfully suggests that the foregoing delusions are more than adequate evidence that the Defendant may suffer from a mental disease or defect that inhibits his rational understanding of the criminal justice process, the role of the Court, the prosecution, and the role that defense counsel may play in a criminal trial and at sentencing. Additionally, counsel respectfully suggests that the Defendant’s delusional disorder substantially interferes with his ability to rationally communicate with counsel and also renders him incapable of representing himself on a pro se basis.
9. While counsel is aware of this Court’s previous Order pertaining to competency, and recognizes the Court’s obligation to inquire, on its own motion, with respect to competency to stand trial, it appears to undersigned counsel that even on the record of this Court’s recent hearing, the Defendant exhibited his delusional disorders to a degree that would require a competency evaluation as contemplated under 18 U.S.C. § 4241.
10. Additionally counsel seeks funds for service other than counsel for the puposes of retaining a forensic psychiatrist to assist counsel in dealing with these issues. Counsel suggests Dr. Eric Drogin, a forensic psychiatrist from Portsmouth, N.H., who has expressed his interest in this matter. The sum of $2,500.00 is initially sought to retain his services.
WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully moves that this Court grant the following relief:
A. Grant this Motion and order that a competency evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4241 of Edward Brown be conducted; and,
B. Order that the aforementioned competency evaluation occur in the District of New Hampshire; and,
C. Allow funds for services other than counsel in the amount of $2,500.00 for the purposes of retaining a forensic psychiatrist; and,
D. Once a competency evaluation has been conducted, schedule a hearing to determine whether the Defendant is competent to stand trial; and,
E . G ra n t such f u r t h e r re l i ef as may be ju s t .
Respectfully submitted,
BRENNAN CARON LENEHAN & IACOPINO
Date: September 11, 2009 By: /s/Michael J. Iacopino
Michael J. Iacopino, Esq. (Bar No. 1233)
85 Brook Street
Manchester, NH 03104
(603) 668-8300
miacopino@bclilaw.com

[Gregg]

So, is stupid crazy?

[The Observer]

4. It appears to undersigned counsel that the Defendant is acting under diminished capacity and likely suffers from a delusional disorder with both paranoid and grandiose features. A delusional disorder is a major mental defect or disease, and is characterized in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual - IV (DSM-IV), along with schizophrenia and other psychotic mental defects. The DSM-IV identifies delusional disorder as a mental illness whose essential feature is “the presence of one or more non-bizarre delusions that persist for at least one month.” A delusion is defined as “false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture.” Delusional disorder is grouped with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Undersigned counsel believes that the Defendant may suffer from this major mental defect or disease.

TPs should be very concerned about this argument - they all have been holding onto delusional beliefs for more than a month.

[Nikki]

Court:

Based on the finding of the independent forensic psychiatrist that both Edward-Lewis :Brown(c) and EDWARD BROWN suffer from delusional disorder to the extent that neither of them can participate meaningfully in the sentencing process, it is hereby ordered:

That, upon the completion of their current federal imprisonment, both Edward-Lewis :Brown(c) and EDWARD BROWN be tranported to the nearest maximum security federal psychiatric hospital for such time as is necessary for appropriate psychiatric treatment to render them capable of meaningful participation in their sentencing.

That the sentencing in this case is suspended indefinitely until the completion of said therapy.

[Quixote]

4. It appears to undersigned counsel that the Defendant is acting under diminished capacity and likely suffers from a delusional disorder with both paranoid and grandiose features. A delusional disorder is a major mental defect or disease, and is characterized in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual - IV (DSM-IV), along with schizophrenia and other psychotic mental defects. The DSM-IV identifies delusional disorder as a mental illness whose essential feature is “the presence of one or more non-bizarre delusions that persist for at least one month.” A delusion is defined as “false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture.” Delusional disorder is grouped with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Undersigned counsel believes that the Defendant may suffer from this major mental defect or disease.

TPs should be very concerned about this argument - they all have been holding onto delusional beliefs for more than a month.

A delusion is defined as “false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture.”

Other members of the TPs' subculture share their beliefs.

[Trippy]

Did I ever tell you guys about Ed's cross-dressing tendencies???

Now, that's just cruel, Wise Melon Cat -- to leave us hanging like that.

[Demosthenes]

The gov responds to the psych eval request:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_206.pdf

[Paladin]

Last post by keith in RI
Quote from: jzacker on September 17, 2009, 06:21 PM NHFTQuote from: keith in RI on September 16, 2009, 07:52 PM NHFTJason's brother has been denied visitation with him because they are twins and it could be an escape risk. Jason appealed the wardens decision but it was upheld.

there is also some issue with a juror in the trial. apparently one of the women jurors said to a friend of hers something to the effect of she had to attend "that damned trial" and she would have to get her kids babysat.... the friend she spoke to happened to work for the courts and word got to the judge and lawyers, so a "behind closed doors hearing" was held where apparently they colluded to allow the women to remain a juror even though she had obviously shown disgust with simply having to be there which may have played against the four defendants.

jason is also having trouble just getting his lawyer to respond to him now.


I asked on a Corrections forum about this. They said the BOP won't block visitation of a twin, they will merely watch them closely and they also said they put a stamp on the hand of the twin (the kind that shows under a blacklight). They just want to make sure they don't switch places. Soo, are we sure he is denied visitation because he is a twin? There are other reason to block visitation.



sorry it took so long to answer this one. he was denied BECAUSE he is a twin. i dont have access to a scanner at this moment but here is the text of the denial letter for jasons request to lift his brothers restrictions. i will scan and post the letter later. jason just sent it to me snail mail this week it is dated 7-6-09

"this is in response to your request for administrative remedy, which was received in this office on june 19th 2009, in which you request the restriction on your brothers visitation at this facility be lifted.

A review of your case reveals your brother, justin gerhard, was denied visitation privileges at this facility because he is an identical twin. the warden at each facility reserves the right to determine who is considered an appropriate visitor, should there be any concern regarding a potential security breach. In this case an identical brother being allowed to visit would pose an escape risk.

Accordingly, your request for administrative remedy is denied. if you are dissatisfied with this response, you may appeal to the regional director, northeast regional office, u.s. customs house 7th floor 2nd and chestnut streets, philadelphia, penn 19106. your appeal must be received in the regional office within 20 days from the date of this response. "

the letter is signed by a karl j b...... someone but under his name for the signature line it says paul m schultz warden, but obviously not signed by paul schultz.
the prison could do many things to accomodate a visit by jasons brother but they CHOOSE not to. even something as simple as a visit behind glass. that would prevent any escape risk ..... the browns and the four supporters arent under the control of just the BOP and the courts but also the FBI's JTTF (joint terrorism task force) they are considered domestic terrorists who are part of something much larger. this was proven to me here in rhode island at the trial for three more friends of mine who were also recently convicted of tax crimes their names are al martin and his wife lorraine and their friend bruce lapierre. their sentencing is set for early october. i believe the 7th or 9th.
i met the browns through the martins and because of the link between them (ill explain in a minute) the federal government assumed that the martins would do the same thing the browns did (standoff) and had a severe increase in security at the courthouse in rhode island as a result. we only knew this because one of the local lawyers on the case noted that the amount of marshals in the courthouse during the trial and the level of security at the entrance had been increased from normal. they were (during the trial) scanning into a computer database the front and backs of peoples licenses that attended the trial. similiar to what they did in new hampshire at the supporters trial when they suddenly were required to record the names and addresses of people attending the trial into a little notebook. however here it was more sophisticated using computers. these things however, WEREN'T done before the martins trial or the browns supporters trial

if you fast forward the story to several weeks ago the federal government arrested seven more people who would be considered tied to the browns. the husband and wife from new hampshire, scott and Catherine Dion who are the, i believe, trustees of the trusts that were set up to protect the browns commercial and residential properties. they, the Dions, along with 5 other people were arrested and charged with tax crimes and other things like impeding investigations etc. they are also being charged with operating a series of tax shelters which masqueraded as bookkeeping companies that operated solely to hide other businesses income from the irs. the "other business' " referred to would be the martins machine shop, Elaine's dental office along with DOZENS AND DOZENS of other small businesses who all used the bookkeeping service as a way to get around requirements to use government issued numbers to attain work. (thats how i understand it anyway)

for example, if you owned a company that needed to get work from other companies, and those companies required you provide them numbers like soc security etc to get work from them, but you dont believe in using soc security numbers etc, then this company (the bookkeeping one) would get the work for you as they had all the government issued numbers that were necessary. however , as i understand it, the bookkeeping company didnt make any money so there was no tax liability.

im explaining this the best i know how to because it is my belief that the browns, as well as the martins and others, are just small pieces of a very large puzzle. or a puzzle the government is trying to say is very large. during the four browns supporters trial i was a witness, and the courts appointed lawyers for all the witnesses to advise us of our 5th amendment rights, or as i like to say, threaten us to not testify. the lawyers that were appointed to myself and another witness told us that the government was trying to stretch the "conspiracy theory" that the browns were involved in so far that it was almost rediculous. i think this is what they meant. i believe there is a huge push in the DOJ to stop this anti-income tax movement and they are considering everyone involved domestic terrorists. i think the browns were a speed bump in the road to a much much bigger case the feds were working on and it involves the browns, the martins, the Dions and many many other good patriotic people.

sorry if this is rambling but im saying this so that you can all understand that jason is not being denied visitation with his brother because hes a twin but because he was a small part of a problem the government sees as very big!

[Paladin]

That is an interesting spin he puts on how those involved with the Browns, still conducting illegal activity, are somehow victims of a grand government conspiracy because the arrests continue.

[Demosthenes]

Ed gets his psych evaluation and Elaine's sentencing is bumped to Oct 2.

09/24/2009 207 ORDER as to Edward Brown re: 204[RECAP] MOTION for Order to Determine Competency to Stand Trial And For Ancillary Relief. Edward Brown committed to custody of AG to be evaluated to determine whether he is competent to be sentenced. Court denies request to have competency evaluation conducted in NH. Court reserves ruling on issue of whether to schedule a competency hearing until review of competency report. Court grants in part request for funds in the amount of $1,500 to retain forensic psychiatrist to assist counsel in dealing with competency issues in this case. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 208 ORDER FOR COMPETENCY EXAMINATION as to Edward Brown. Defendant committed to custody of AG for a period not to exceed 30 days for placement in a suitable facility. Exam to be conducted as outlined. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 209 ORDER denying 177 Motion for New Trial as to Edward Brown (1) and denying 176 Motion for New Trial as to Elaine Brown (2). So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF SENTENCING HEARING as to Elaine Brown: Sentencing reset for 10/2/2009 09:00 AM (from 9/30/09) before Judge George Z. Singal, US District Court, New Hampshire.(dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
09/24/2009 Terminate Deadline as to Edward Brown: Sentencing for 9/30/09 is postponed. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

[Demosthenes]

The order denying the Browns a new trial is interesting.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_209.pdf

[Demosthenes]

On two subsequent occasions, Attorney Iacopino attempted to contact Mr. Quinn by
telephone. Sealed Declaration of Michael Iacopino Regarding the Defendant’s Pending Motion
for a New Trial at 1 (Docket Item 188). On each occasion, a voice mail message identified the
phone number as belonging to a school district. Id. at 2. On August 10, 2009, Attorney Iacopino again called the phone number he had been given by David Quinn and left a message. Id. Shortly after leaving the message, Attorney Iacopino received a call from a person who identified himself as the confidential informant. Id. The confidential informant advised Attorney Iacopino that David Quinn was a relative of his and that David Quinn had not provided “completely accurate information.” Id. The confidential informant further indicated that he was willing to answer any questions but only if the prosecutor and his lawyer were on the call. Id. Attorney Iacopino contacted the confidential informant again by telephone, and at that time a conference call was scheduled for noon on August 25, 2009. Id. at 2-3.

Attorney Iacopino notified the Court at the presentence conference that the conference call scheduled for August 25, 2009, with the confidential informant did not take place because
the confidential informant did not join the call at the appointed time. Attorney Iacopino also
stated that he received a voice message from the individual he believed to be the confidential informant apologizing for not joining the scheduled call and indicating that he would get back to Attorney Iacopino when he was back in town. Thereafter, Attorney Iacopino indicated that he contemplated further filings on the matter, but to date there have been no filings made on behalf of either Defendant and counsel has not requested additional time to file.

Given the unusual nature of the post-trial contacts by the individual I will refer to as
David Quinn, the Court asked the Government to provide detailed, clarifying information
regarding the United States Marshals Service’s relationship with the confidential informant,
whether the confidential informant was employed by, or working with, any entity at the time he was working on the Brown case, the total amount of money paid to the informant, whether the informant had contact with the Forseti Group or any individual affiliated with the Forseti Group, in connection with the Brown case, and any potential Brady or Giglio information that the confidential informant may have knowledge of in the Brown case. See Sealed Order on Request for Information (Docket Item 189). The Government has filed four affidavits of Marshals Service employees who were involved with either the Brown case or the confidential informant. The Marshals Service appears to have conducted a diligent inquiry of all individuals within the Marshals Service who would have had access to the information referenced in the Defendants’ Motions.

In one affidavit, a Marshals Service employee recounts an interview he conducted with the confidential informant on August 18, 2009, which explains how the David Quinn came to have some knowledge of the confidential informant’s role in the case. In fact, the affidavit clarifies the inaccurate information relayed to defense counsel and plausibly explains how David Quinn may have come into possession of the mistaken information he communicated to counsel for the Defendants.

The in camera affidavits from United States Marshals Service employees do not bear fruit
on any of the issues raised by the Defendants in their Motions. None of the information
provided by the confidential informant contradicts in any material manner the testimony of the government’s witnesses at trial. The confidential informant has no knowledge of any psychological profiling or testing conducted on Edward Brown. In addition, there is no
indication by the confidential informant that Elaine Brown’s behavior was being controlled by
Edward Brown or other potentially exculpatory information about the relationship between the Defendants that was not known by Elaine Brown. The affidavits put to rest the issue of the Forseti Group and any suspicions that the confidential informant was an employee of the Forseti Group or any other entity at the time he worked on the Brown case. Neither the information offered by David Quinn or the affidavits supplied by the Government in response to the Courts request provide a basis upon which to impeach Deputy William S. Robertson’s trial testimony. It is also clear from the totality of the information provided by the Government that it was not then, and is not now, in possession of any exculpatory evidence under Brady or Giglio.

Requests for information about the identity of a confidential informant and the struggle
over entitlement to the privilege typically are fought out in motion practice and other pretrial proceedings. E.g., United States v. Robinson, 144 F.3d 104, 105-06 (1st Cir. 1998); United States v. Bibbey, 735 F.2d 619, 621 (1st Cir.1984). In recognition of the seminal case on a confidential informant’s privilege, pretrial evidentiary hearings devoted to this issue is known as a “Roviaro hearings.” The Defendants have neither asked for the Government to disclose the identity of the confidential informant nor made a timely request for a Roviaro hearing. Although the Defendants have indicated to the Court that they have attempted to interview the confidential informant and he was unavailable at the scheduled time, they have not asked the Court for any assistance to procure further communication with the confidential informant or asked for additional time to make that contact.

The Court has conducted a thorough review of the documentation presented by the Government in response to the post-trial phone calls involving David Quinn, the confidential informant and the issues raised by the Defendants in their Motions with respect to the calls. The Defendants have not established the existence of any new evidence that is material to any issue at trial. Del-Valle, 566 F.3d at 38. Thus, there is no basis to grant the Defendants a new trial.

[LPC]

The order denying the Browns a new trial is interesting.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_209.pdf

The court's explanation of why the Browns were not allowed to offer a "justification defense" is found in footnote 1 on page 4:

The four Lahey elements that must be shown to establish the justification defense are that the defendant was: (1) under an unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) he did not recklessly place himself in a situation in which he would be forced to engage in criminal conduct; (3) he had no reasonable legal alternative but to engage in that conduct; and (4) there was a direct causal relationship between his criminal conduct and the need to avoid the threatened harm. Here, the Defendants could not satisfy any of the elements from the Lahey test.

0-for-4 is not good.

[LPC]

Most maddeningly obscure and mystifying comment by the court:

In fact, the affidavit [of a Marshals Service employee describing an interview with the still-unnamed confidential informant] clarifies the inaccurate information relayed to defense counsel and plausibly explains how David Quinn may have come into possession of the mistaken information he communicated to counsel for the Defendants.

So, the court still doesn't know for sure who "David Quinn" might be, but is fairly sure it knows how he came into possession of mistaken information about the confidential informant?

If Ed Brown weren't insane before, he might go insane after he reads *that* mysterious non-explanation.

[Imalawman]

Most maddeningly obscure and mystifying comment by the court:

In fact, the affidavit [of a Marshals Service employee describing an interview with the still-unnamed confidential informant] clarifies the inaccurate information relayed to defense counsel and plausibly explains how David Quinn may have come into possession of the mistaken information he communicated to counsel for the Defendants.

So, the court still doesn't know for sure who "David Quinn" might be, but is fairly sure it knows how he came into possession of mistaken information about the confidential informant?

If Ed Brown weren't insane before, he might go insane after he reads *that* mysterious non-explanation.

Ha, I saw that too and was like, "NO! You can't leave me hanging like that!"