Appeals Brief for Cirino Gonzalez

[VanMeters Revenge]

Appeals Brief for Cirino Gonzalez
http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gon ... sFiled.pdf

originally posted on
http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html

[bmielke]

Finally, Mr. Gonzalez argues that the government had no territorial
jurisdiction to prosecute him for crimes in Plainfield, New Hampshire, nor to try
him at the courthouse in Concord, when the state has not ceded either place to the
federal government.

It was going real well until I got here, then I realized this whole thing was probably more BS. Further down we find...

Section 111, however, does not contain the words “hinder” or “prevent,” nor
the phrase “hinder or prevent.” Rather § 111 broadly makes it a crime when one
“assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes” with law
enforcement during “performance of official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1).
Moreover, section 111 provides that these things must be done “forcibly,” a
requirement absent from § 3.

Do appeals always split hairs like this or is Reno just special?

Use of the conjunctive in indictments followed by use of the disjunctive in
jury instructions is a well-canvassed area of the law. The cases arise in several
contexts, none of which are instructive here.

Could this be something or it is just grasping at straws?

Although Mr. Gonzalez knew the Browns had been convicted of something
regarding taxes, there was no proof that Mr. Gonzalez was aware of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the Browns convictions, and certainly none showing he
had knowledge of the elements of the Browns’ crimes. Given that the indictment
did not specify the Browns’ underlying crime, discussed supra, this is not surprising.

Is this true? If I know some one was convicted of Murder and I help them escape I need to know exactly how they murdered and what evidence lead to their conviction before I myself am guilty of a crime? In that case if Reno is too stupid to understand that the Browns broke tax laws is that a defense to this count?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Do appeals always split hairs like this ...?

Yes, and rightly so. Appeals (especially those involving jury instructions and sentencings) almost always involve splitting hairs and there are folks who make a living off of splitting them more ways than one.

(FWIW - Whoever he is, this obviously ain't his first rodeo.)

[Nikki]

Joshua L. Gordon appears to be skating a fine line.

Although many of the arguments he extends have a miniscule basis in reality, he has not documented where these arguments were raised at trial in the form of an objection to the coutr's action or in any other manner.

Absent raising the issues at trial, their viability upon appeal is tenuous.

However, Gordon crosses the line with his final argument: jurisdiction. He seems to have quaffed deeply at the sovereign fountain of KoolAid with respect to his belief that the Federal government lacks jurisdiction to prosecute cases outside of specific "federal" zones.

Mr Gordon is risking both sanctions and the dismisal of the appeal for including such a blatantly frivolous argument.

[bmielke]

Joshua L. Gordon appears to be skating a fine line.

Although many of the arguments he extends have a miniscule basis in reality, he has not documented where these arguments were raised at trial in the form of an objection to the coutr's action or in any other manner.

Absent raising the issues at trial, their viability upon appeal is tenuous.

However, Gordon crosses the line with his final argument: jurisdiction. He seems to have quaffed deeply at the sovereign fountain of KoolAid with respect to his belief that the Federal government lacks jurisdiction to prosecute cases outside of specific "federal" zones.

Mr Gordon is risking both sanctions and the dismisal of the appeal for including such a blatantly frivolous argument.

In a previous thread one of the lawyers said that sometimes a good lawyer just uses an argument because their client demands it. From what I read this guy seems on the up and up. I am not familiar with Appeals. Prior to the good Judge answering my question I thought the Attorney was a total loon spliting hairs like he does, is it possible he's listening a little to much to his kool aid soaked client?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Joshua L. Gordon appears to be skating a fine line.

Although many of the arguments he extends have a miniscule basis in reality, he has not documented where these arguments were raised at trial in the form of an objection to the coutr's action or in any other manner.

Actually, in one case I believe he did:

The jury’s finding of no guilt was despite being instructed that, under
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946), a conspirator may be held liable
for the actions of conspirators (who, it found, were liable for guns and explosives).
Thus the jury found Mr. Gonzalez not-responsible for not only his own guns, but
also for the vast array of weapons and destructive devices possessed by others.

The sentencing court, however, made contrary findings. The court found
that Mr. Gonzalez purchased a rifle “specifically to intimidate the marshals,
prevent them from accomplishing their lawful duties and [it] would have been
used against them if the marshals had attempted to enforce the warrant.” DE 621
at 39. The court found Mr. Gonzalez’s testimony – that his gun “‘was not to
threaten or intimidate the United States Marshals in any way,’” that “he never
carried a weapon in furtherance of” the purpose to intimidate, and that “he didn’t
intend to use those firearms to threaten anyone” – “perjurious.” DE 621 at 40.

Over Mr. Gonzalez’s objection, the court specifically used these findings to
determine sentence. DE 621 at 42. In sentencing, the court ruled that Mr.
Gonzalez “possessed a dangerous weapon and its use was threatened; therefore
pursuant to [U.S.S.G.] § 2A2.4(b)(1)(B) the offense level is increased by 3.”
PSI ¶ 47, SealedAppx. at 18; FINDINGS AFFECTING SENTENCE ¶ 3 (Sept. 26, 2008)
JointAppx. at 59.

The Supreme Court has held that the double jeopardy clause does not
preclude a sentencing court from considering acquitted conduct, United States v.
Watts, 519 US 148,157 (1997), but it has not reached the issue of whether reliance
on the conduct violates the right to trial by jury. In United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), the Court held that a sentence may not be increased based upon
facts not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. It follows that a sentencing
court may not increase a sentence based on facts specifically rejected by the jury.

IMHO he has a point there although I'm taking him at his word that the increase was indeed applied as he depicts.

Absent raising the issues at trial, their viability upon appeal is tenuous.

However, Gordon crosses the line with his final argument: jurisdiction. He seems to have quaffed deeply at the sovereign fountain of KoolAid with respect to his belief that the Federal government lacks jurisdiction to prosecute cases outside of specific "federal" zones.

Mr Gordon is risking both sanctions and the dismisal of the appeal for including such a blatantly frivolous argument.

I doubt he'll be sanctioned, but I can't wait to see the court's response.

[wserra]

Caveat: I have never been an appeals specialist. I have, however, done lots of (formerly) criminal and (currently) civil appeals in multiple Circuits (and NYS courts) during my career. I can proudly say that I can get a cert petition denied with the best of 'em.

As JRB says, Gordon has obviously been around the block a few times. Splitting hairs is indeed what appellate practice is about, and part of the art is finding the hairs about which appellate judges care. A few observations:

(1) I'm somewhat surprised at the number of points he raises. It is a virtual axiom of appellate practice that you pick your best few arguments and run with 'em. The more you push weaker arguments, the more you dilute stronger ones. I have never filed a brief with twelve arguments - sixteen, if you include sub-points. Still, for all I know that's the practice in the First Circuit.

(2) The "Guideline sentencing for objects of the conspiracy on which the jury didn't convict" is, as I see it, one of those weak arguments. Every court of which I am aware has ruled that, so long as the sentence doesn't exceed the max for the single conspiracy count, there is no Booker problem in Guidelines § 1B1.2(d) (the judge finding multiple objects means separate conspiracies for Guideline purposes).

(3) It is difficult to see how the points concerning the validity of the conspiracy conviction (multiple objects, charged in the disjunctive - i.e., the jury must find only one of the charged objects) survives Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991). While Griffin deals with a general verdict, and in his Point II(B) Gordon tries to distinguish such cases, I don't see it.

(4) Although Gordon tries to avoid the phrase "sufficiency of the evidence", that is what a couple of his points amount to. Good luck.

(5) I would be very surprised if the gibberish jurisdiction argument resulted in sanctions, or even harsh words. Judges do understand that one does certain things in order to retain communication with a difficult client. And Gordon putting that argument last is a hint and a half that he recognizes it to be nonsense. A real jurisdiction argument is front and center.

All in all, a high grade of lipstick on a pig.

[wserra]

And, for all you Brown-fan morons who can't read at all, here is a video of Reno's dad reciting the "Statement of Issues" from the brief.

Fun, fun, fun.

[Demosthenes]

A Reno supporter chimes in on his appellate brief:

Nappy Headed Ho

As a legal professional
I can tell you that you've definitely proved your case
from a legal standpoint
What I can't tell you however
is that any of this will be considered

Something big appears to be going down
Judges and U.S. attorneys are acting in unison
but not according to the law

Maybe they don't want to be fired
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/20 ... attorneys/

Posted by Nappy Headed Ho on Friday, October 16, 2009 - 3:10 PM

[Demosthenes]

I wonder what her "legal professional" background is?

Nappy Headed Ho's Blurbs
About me:
I run an escort service in Nome Alaska where the ratio of men to women is currently eleven to one. I am looking for others who want to join my service. I will pay for your plane trip here and you will have a place to stay. There is approximately seven times more demand than I can fill.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I can tell you that you've definitely proved your case
from a legal standpoint
What I can't tell you however
is that any of this will be considered

Another grammatical genius.

[Gregg]

I wonder what her "legal professional" background is?

Nappy Headed Ho's Blurbs
About me:
I run an escort service in Nome Alaska where the ratio of men to women is currently eleven to one. I am looking for others who want to join my service. I will pay for your plane trip here and you will have a place to stay. There is approximately seven times more demand than I can fill.

Their is a movie based upon a Mobster who defended himself pro se in a RICO trial with dozens of defendants and lasted over 2 years, and at the beginning of the trial (the script was taken from transcripts) the judge asks what legal experience he has. The reply, "well your honor, I've spent over half my life in jail"

[bmielke]

I wonder what her "legal professional" background is?

Nappy Headed Ho's Blurbs
About me:
I run an escort service in Nome Alaska where the ratio of men to women is currently eleven to one. I am looking for others who want to join my service. I will pay for your plane trip here and you will have a place to stay. There is approximately seven times more demand than I can fill.

Their is a movie based upon a Mobster who defended himself pro se in a RICO trial with dozens of defendants and lasted over 2 years, and at the beginning of the trial (the script was taken from transcripts) the judge asks what legal experience he has. The reply, "well your honor, I've spent over half my life in jail"

What movie is that? I think I'd like to see it.

[Pottapaug1938]

I wonder what her "legal professional" background is?

Nappy Headed Ho's Blurbs
About me:
I run an escort service in Nome Alaska where the ratio of men to women is currently eleven to one. I am looking for others who want to join my service. I will pay for your plane trip here and you will have a place to stay. There is approximately seven times more demand than I can fill.

I'm guessing that she worked as a paralegal for a short while, or else got a "law degree" from a law school run out of back room of someone's place of business, much like that "sovrun court" out in Las vegas.

[The Operative]

Their is a movie based upon a Mobster who defended himself pro se in a RICO trial with dozens of defendants and lasted over 2 years, and at the beginning of the trial (the script was taken from transcripts) the judge asks what legal experience he has. The reply, "well your honor, I've spent over half my life in jail"

What movie is that? I think I'd like to see it.

"Find me guilty" starring Vin Diesel
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419749/

[Paladin]

Brown supporters appeal convictions
Judge's sentencing also challenged

By Margot Sanger-Katz Monitor staff October 26, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of four men convicted of aiding Ed and Elaine Brown during their prolonged 2007 standoff in Plainfield have appealed their convictions and sentences to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Cirino Gonzalez of Alice, Texas, and Jason Gerhard of Brookhaven, N.Y., have both filed documents with the appeals court citing numerous issues from their trials and sentencing hearings. A third defendant, Daniel Riley of Cohoes, N.Y., also plans to appeal, his lawyer said, but will not file a brief until December.

The fourth defendant, Robert Wolffe of Randolph, Vt., pleaded guilty and has not appealed.

The men were accused of supplying, supporting and arming Ed and Elaine Brown when the couple holed up in their castle-like Plainfield home and threatened violence if U.S. marshals tried to arrest them on bench warrants. Evidence at trial showed that the men lived with the couple, bought them supplies and indicated that they intended to protect the Browns from what they saw as an unlawful and tyrannical federal government.

The Browns were arrested by a team of undercover U.S. marshals, and a search of their home afterward found it littered with guns, homemade bombs and other military equipment. The Browns were found guilty this summer of 11 felonies and are likely to spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Both Gonzalez and Gerhard received sentences that exceeded the recommendations of the federal sentencing guidelines, and lawyers for both men said Judge George Singal applied improper considerations when imposing such lengthy sentences.
Gerhard, who was just 22 at the time of his sentencing last year, is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence - nearly double what probation officers recommended. He was found guilty of two counts of conspiracy, possessing a weapon in connection with a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting the Browns.

During the trial, the government presented evidence that Gerhard bought numerous rifles and ammunition that were found at the Browns' home after their arrest and that he made veiled threats against deputy U.S. marshals. During his sentencing hearing, witnesses also said that Gerhard had expressed admiration for Timothy McVeigh, who orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombings in 1996.

During the sentencing hearing, Singal said Gerhard "displays an intent to continue his conduct and endanger the community."

His appeal, filed by Paul Glickman of Boston, argues that Gerhard should have received a much shorter sentence. His brief argues that certain crimes should have been considered misdemeanors, not felonies.

Glickman's appeal makes several other arguments, including:

• The two conspiracy convictions are unfair because they punished Gerhard twice for the same conduct. Glickman's brief suggests that one of the two charges should have been dismissed. If it is, Gerhard could receive a shorter sentence, since he is serving consecutive sentences for the crimes.

• Many of the charges should be dismissed because the indictments do not fully describe the nature of the crimes of which Gerhard was accused.

Gonzalez, a former military contractor, was found guilty of fewer crimes, after the jury could not reach a verdict on certain counts. He was convicted of one count of conspiracy and one of aiding and abetting the Browns. The jury could not decide whether he should be found guilty of a weapons charge, after Gonzalez testified at trial that the three guns he brought to Plainfield were intended for his personal protection, not security.

During the standoff, Gonzalez lived with the Browns for weeks and maintained a blog informing supporters about developments in the case. At trial, prosecutors played a video of Gonzalez holding a gun and explaining how federal agents were afraid to arrest the Browns because their supporters had military training.

Because the jury did not find Gonzalez guilty of that crime, his lawyer argues that Singal should not have considered Gonzalez's weapon possession when selecting a sentence. During Gonzalez's sentencing hearing, Singal cited Gonzalez's weapons as one of several reasons he imposed a stiff sentence. He also ruled that several of Gonzalez's statements in court, including a statement that the guns were not used to protect the Browns, amounted to perjury.

"The jury just didn't buy the prosecution's case that he was dangerous - that there were weapons," said Joshua Gordon of Concord, Gonzalez's appeals lawyer. "But the judge sentenced him as if they did, and it's just not right."

Gordon's brief raises several other issues, including:

• That Gonzalez - like Gerhard - received a felony sentence for what Gordon described as a misdemeanor crime.

• That the jury instructions did not properly reflect the requirements of the conspiracy law Gonzalez was accused of violating.

The brief also includes an argument that was frequently cited by the Browns and their supporters throughout the standoff. According to the brief, Gonzalez's conviction should be invalidated because the federal courthouse in Concord is not actually federal property, an argument that Gordon says would call into question all judgments originating in that court.

"If the argument holds water, it applies to all federal prosecutions," Gordon said.

[Imalawman]

Speaking of Bob Wolfe...isn't he due to get out of the clinker pretty soon here? I know his wife will be glad, here's hoping he gets on the straight and narrow.

[webhick]

Speaking of Bob Wolfe...isn't he due to get out of the clinker pretty soon here? I know his wife will be glad, here's hoping he gets on the straight and narrow.

11/16/2009. Talk about a happy Thanksgiving.

[Paladin]

Sunday, November 08, 2009
Cirino "Reno" Gonzalez 11/08/09 Q and A Session.
Cirino "Reno" Gonzalez 11/08/09 Q and A Session.

This Morning I ask you all what you would like to ask Reno, here is the 11-08-09 Q and A sessions. I will be doing this quite often, so if you did not get to submit an inquiry this morning, don't fret, I will be holding these informal interviews about 2 times a month or more. These will be posted on Reno's blog, sites, and will be reading these on the weekly radio shows on Revere.

Thank you for everyone that has participated.
Donna VanMeter

1. THE LOST CHICKASAW say…
ASK- - - WHY ARE MR. & MRS. BROWN IN PRISON, WHEN WHAT THEY DID WAS NOT AGAINST THE LAW- - - THE LAW IS CORRUPT, IT IS WRONG- - - IN OTHER WORDS- - - THE LAW IS WRONG,AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND EVERY ONE OF US SHOULD STOP PAYING FEDERAL TAXES!!! - - - WE THE PEOPLE ARE BEING LIED TO, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LAW!!! . - - - DUE TO THE *** FACT*** THAT IT IS NOT A LAW- - - NOR ***IS*** THEIR A LAW- - - CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED & EVERYONE SET FREE, THEY ARE BEING HELD FOR SOMETHING WE DO NOT EVEN HAVE ON RECORD/NOWHERE IS THERE A "LAW" STATING "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE -BY LAW-TO PAY FEDERAL TAXES!!!. ALSO, BY THE WAY, I WANT MY MONEY BACK, "THEY" STOLE FROM ME- - - E-V-E-R-Y- PENNY, WITH INTREST!!!. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! SET THEM FREE!!!NOW!!!

Answer:
That sounds more like a statement more than a question but I will take a shot at it…
Specifically they are in prison to conceal the fact there is no law! If this was to be exposed it could have great implications for the bankers, the illusion they have perpetuated of country will fail, and the elite loses out.
( Reno speaks rather faster and I write slow. Not to mention working with a limited window of time to converse)

2.Defiant Misfit
Yes, my question is this. Does he recommend for or against allowing oneself to be taken alive by the oppressors who have hijacked our country?


Answer:
Well as I have found out there is a positive side to be “taken alive” and going into the system. One gets to continue their activism, and gain more support for the cause and connecting with others with similar concerns, while continuing to learn. The alternative is you become a martyr gaining sympathy for the cause, but the point isn’t to die, to quote Patton, The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.


3. Pamela’s Protest
I am aware of the browns and Reno's situation.. when this event was happening I was apart of the internet of friends that was monitoring the situation daily...I have a certain myspace friend that has for a while now been telling me that Alex Jones was the one responsible for sending a person into the Browns home and getting them set up. So my Question is this true did Alex Jones have anything to do with ...knowing or unknowing...set up the Browns and Reno?
thanks ..peace and love
Pamela


Answer:
All intelligence points to YES. But the all the details of the depth of his involvement are still unknown. YES he was aware ( of their positions ) and had people on the inside that were sent there. When authorities became more involved he had his people to stand down and pull back and disappear, Amy Williamson being of such sort, he paid her for her part. (Quite well may I add, which was to fund my trip to Iraq)..Past instances proves his involvement and cooperation with federal agents. I have no problems if federal agents wanted to help and get involved in the movement/cause, its only when they impede our freedoms and rights that I have a problem with.

4 Engineer for 911 TRUTH
Yeah I emailed him a couple of weeks ago and didn't get a reply. Just wondering if they censor his stuff.
Thanks

Answer:
I am not sure I have received your particular email as of yet. Sometimes letters go through the scrutiny of the FBOP, They may still be holding on to it, which they have been known to do for several weeks at a time. There are times I receive empty envelopes without the letters, sometimes there’s a brief explanation of why the contents were not suitable for release, other times letters get sent back to senders, or just disappear without a trace.

[Paladin]

Monday, November 09, 2009
Just How Long the Appeals Process May Last?
JL Gordon,

Thank you for the honest reply.
We are disappointed with the extended time but understand the burreaucracy

Wake up & make the USA what we thought it used to be~

Hasta luego!
:{ jmg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 05:00:05 -0500
From: jlgordon@appealslawyer.net
To: sirhandsome@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Appeal process

It is impossible to say with much certitude exactly how long the appellate process is -- I loosely guess around a year to year-and-a-half. The government's brief is due 30 days after ours, but I am sure that is going to slip, just like ours did. Moreover, Riley's brief date is in December, and with the usual extensions, could be several months after that. I'm further guessing that the gov't will wait for it to be filed before filing briefs in any of the cases.

After it is filed, the court will take several -- 3 or 4 -- months to read the briefs and record, and to schedule an oral argument. After oral argument, there will be another 3 to 4 months before we get a decision.

If we do not like the outcome of the decision, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is due 90 days after our 1st Circuit decision. If the court does not take the case, we will be notified within about a month. If it accepts it, the process there takes about a year.

Joshua

-- Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon26 S. Main St. # 175Concord, NH 03301(603) 226-4225jlgordon@AppealsLawyer.netwww.AppealsLawyer.net(Communication via e-mail does not establish an attorney-client relationship.)

Jose M. Gonzalez wrote:
JL Gordon,

I know you are a very busy.
Please, forward the question, below, to your assistant(?) to answer for Cirino.

What is time table of the appeal process; How long does the prosecution have to rebutt, extend, etc ... what is the steps and length of the entire process?

Wake up & make the USA what we thought it used to be~

Hasta luego!
:{ jmg