Ed's sentencing

[Judge Roy Bean]

Ed's counsel faces a future career that will, one way or another, have the outcome of the case attached to it. Fortunately, it's a low enough profile undertaking that the average Joe on the street wouldn't even know what it was all about, especially some years from now.

In the grand scheme of things, defending Ed Brown could never be something for the career highlight reel and there really is little that he can publicly say on his own behalf.

[fortinbras]

Ed's lawyer can hardly be blamed because his client is not only demonstrably guilty and unrepentent but also determined to bypass his appointed counsel to make self-destructive public statements. Heck, under the circumstances, getting Ed anything less than a life sentence (and, in law, 99 years is, honest to God, considered less than a life sentence) would be an enormous feather in his cap.

[notorial dissent]

Wes, I agree with what you are saying, I wouldn't have wanted the job under any circumstances, but I still think that another approach would have been the lesser of two evils, and the response he gave came out and admitted that his client had committed further, aggravating crimes, during his escapades, which I don’t think was a good move, and certainly will be something for the judge to consider, like it will really matter. I would think that he would have been able to have obfuscated what he was saying sufficiently that Ed would have missed what was being said, without compromising his clients delusions, and his integrity. With all due respect, I feel he has done both. Ed’s sentencing was/is a fargone conclusion, and the sentencing motion is for all intents and purposes pro forma. There were a lot of other things that could have been said that wouldn’t have offended Ed’s delicate sensibilities.

And quite true that Ed’s lawyer cannot be blamed for the fact that his client is guilty as sin, totally unrepentant, and quite frankly a menace to society. In fact, I applaud him for having taken the case and for making for the most part an honest and good attempt at mitigating his client’s totally self destructive existence. What I am not pleased with are some of the things he did and allowed to go on, and this final motion is just a part of it. I will in all honesty say that I don’t think there is/was anything that could really have been done to alter where this ended up, short of gagging Ed throughout the entire affair and working on the juries sympathies as hard as possible, and Ed saw to it that that wouldn’t happen, and Ed’s conviction and sentence were a resulting of Ed’s behavior. The only reason Ed wasn’t on trial for murder was because of the restraint shown by the Marshall’s in their dealing with him, because serious bodily harm was certainly part of his over all plan.

I have worked around some incredibly sleazy attorneys, and also some incredibly good ones, and I have seen the work of both when dealing with clients who were innocent, and those who weren’t, and to put not too fine a point on it, were I to ever need an attorney or recommend one, he wouldn’t be in consideration. My opinion admittedly, but still my opinion.

[.]

I applaud him for having taken the case

Ah, Iacopino didn't "take" the case in the usual sense of the word of a private attorney accepting work for compensation from his client, he was routinely assigned the case as one of a number of public defenders available to defend indigent defendants. Luck of the draw. I imagine that it is possible to turn down a case as a PD, but that it probably requires a good reason and that "this guy is a crank and a whack-job" isn't one of them.

Recall that Iacopino tried to withdraw from this case earlier because of a postulated total breakdown in communication and trust between he and Ed. That didn't happen, he's still got the case.

As for any effect of this case or any case like it on the career of any PD, I'll guess zero. Ed is just one more in a vast pile of cases handled every year, about 95% of which result in convictions. Interesting to us, but virtually nobody else.

[Imalawman]

The absolute minimum sentence is 361 months, which, with maximum good time, come out to about 25 1/2 years. At his age, he will be 92 years old.

I believe that the new sentence will not even start to run until he finishes his current sentence, for which the projected release date is May 2012, so he's going to be at least 94 or 95 before he's likely to be wheeled out.

Wow, 2012. Elaine could be living with her family, perhaps even make some money doing some dentistry work. It wouldn't be an easy retirement, but she'd be free. What a waste and what a mistake. And we're the slaves....

[RaymondKarczewski]

Latest on Ed Brown Sentencing.

Brown's competency in question Judge to announce his decision today
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
January 11, 2010 - 6:53 am

A federal judge will decide today whether Ed Brown is mentally capable
of participating in his sentencing for a series of criminal charges
including possession of explosives and obstruction of justice.

If the judge deems Brown competent, the retired cockroach exterminator
is likely to be sentenced to more than 30 years in federal prison.

Brown, who with his wife, Elaine, holed up in the couple's castle-like
Plainfield home for nearly nine months, testified at trial that he
built dozens of explosive devices, set up numerous rifles and invited
supporters to his house to help prevent federal marshals from
capturing him or his wife to face sentences for tax crimes.

During the 2007 standoff, the Browns made repeated threats against
federal officials and vowed to go down shooting if agents attempted to
arrest them.

The Browns were arrested by a team of undercover U.S. Marshals, who
apprehended the couple while posing as supporters.

Ed Brown now faces a virtual life sentence for the charges he was
convicted on - one charge alone carries a mandatory minimum sentence
of 30 years in prison. Elaine Brown was recently sentenced to 35 years
for her part in the conspiracy, less than the sentence recommended by
federal guidelines.

Four of the Browns' supporters have also received lengthy prison terms
for their involvement in the standoff - including one, found guilty of
handling explosive devices, who is serving a 36-year sentence.

Brown's lawyer, Michael Iacopino, has asked the judge for a sentence
of 30 years and one month, arguing that Brown's age - 67 - makes a
longer sentence unnecessary. Iacopino's motion also argues that Brown
should receive leniency because no one was harmed by his actions and
because he took responsibility for his crimes through his trial
testimony.

"Although he may have been at times surly and disorganized in his
testimony he testified truthfully," Iacopino's motion says, arguing
that Brown went to trial for "political purposes." "In fact he
admitted essentially every element of each offense when examined by
the prosecutor."

As of yesterday, prosecutors had not filed a motion outlining their
sentencing recommendations.

Iacopino did not dispute Brown's competency before the trial but asked
for a mental health evaluation afterward, arguing that Brown's
behavior and statements suggested a delusional disorder that would
make him unable to participate in his own defense during sentencing.

Today, Judge George Singal will decide whether the argument has merit.
Singal ordered Brown to spend at least 30 days under evaluation by
prison mental health experts.

If Singal determines Brown is unable to understand the nature of the
proceedings, he will likely postpone the sentencing hearing.

rk: It would appear JUDGE SINGAL is looking for a way out of the fact
that he has not answered the question of the court's JURISDICTION over
Ed Brown, a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man
of the Sovereign People.

rk: Why else would millions of dollars be spent trying Ed and Elaine,
husband and wife, man and woman for a crime they for which they, the
court would not SHOW THE LAW which convicts them, nor answer the
preliminary challenge of JURISDICTION?

rk: Clearly, if Ed and Elaine Brown were not Subjects of the
Corporation, (and they repeatedly said so through their challenges)
the trials of Ed Brown and Elaine Brown were shams, a waste of
taxpayer money, theater for the Indolent, and a clearcut statement
that we Americans no longer live in the Land of the Free.

rk: Should not the question of competence been raised prior to Trial,
not after all the tax-payers money was spent on a show trial to deter
Sovereign People from holding their Public Officials accountable,
before SINGAL had to cover his butt for not following the law and
answering the Brown Challenge of JURISDICTION?

rk: It would seem the question each must ask themselves is whose
competency is in question, Ed Brown's or JUDGE SINGAL who deliberately
subverted the Law?

rk: A public outcry is in order. Phone, mail, email, fax Judge SINGAL
with the demand of a CONCERNED populous. PROVE JURISDICTION OR
RELEASE Ed and Elaine Brown.

Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

[Doktor Avalanche]

[LPC]

It's 444 months (37 years) according to Demo's Blackberry.

[wserra]

Given the mandatory consecutive 30 years for the explosives count, it's hard to see how he would get much less.

[Demosthenes]

The prison shrink diagnosed Ed with narcisstic personality disorder (which pleased Ed mightily - he kept nodding in agreement) and Ed thinks that the US Attorney's Office (and the Moose Lodge) are the secret force behind all of the world's problems along with millions of deaths.

Demo's Blackberry

[The Observer]

...Ed thinks that the US Attorney's Office (and the Moose Lodge) are the secret force behind all of the world's problems along with millions of deaths.

Damn his eyes. How did he latch onto the Moose Lodge connection? Now we have to go back to square one and develop another front for the Illuminati.

[Cpt Banjo]

And I always thought that Boris was the bad guy.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

I applaud him for having taken the case

Ah, Iacopino didn't "take" the case in the usual sense of the word of a private attorney accepting work for compensation from his client, he was routinely assigned the case as one of a number of public defenders available to defend indigent defendants. Luck of the draw. I imagine that it is possible to turn down a case as a PD, but that it probably requires a good reason and that "this guy is a crank and a whack-job" isn't one of them.

Attorney Iacopino is not a PD. He is in private practice, but is on the panel of CJA attorneys who will accept cases which the Federal Defenders' office cannot handle. Since Bjorn Lange (the head of the NH Federal Public Defender's office) represented Elaine, the office was conflicted out of representing any of the other defendants. Attorney Iacopino could have turned down the case at the outset (although it might not have been politically prudent to do so).

Attorney Iacopino did a fine job for Ed.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

The prison shrink diagnosed Ed with narcisstic personality disorder (which pleased Ed mightily - he kept nodding in agreement) and Ed thinks that the US Attorney's Office (and the Moose Lodge) are the secret force behind all of the world's problems along with millions of deaths.

Demo's Blackberry

Stay tuned for Demo's update. The sentencing was pretty interesting.

444 months (37 years), to run consecutive with his current sentence. With maximum good time of 54 days/year, that results in a sentence of approximately 31.5 years (or just a bit over 378 months). That works out to a release date of November 2043. Ed will be 100 years old.

I guess my taxes would be paying for his nursing home care either way, it just depends on whether the check was written by Medicaid of the BOP.

[fortinbras]

Lawyers do not necessarily accept only easy cases and deserving-to-win clients. As a matter of fact, it is considered something of a badge of honor to have taken on a tough case with an unlovable client and gotten the best possible result (even if only the best of a very bad choice) for the client. After all, John Adams represented the Redcoats charged in the Boston Massacre.

[Scoop]

The prison shrink diagnosed Ed with narcisstic personality disorder (which pleased Ed mightily - he kept nodding in agreement)

Ed Brown: "The narcissistic part of it is probably a little bit true."

[bmielke]

...Ed thinks that the US Attorney's Office (and the Moose Lodge) are the secret force behind all of the world's problems along with millions of deaths.

Damn his eyes. How did he latch onto the Moose Lodge connection? Now we have to go back to square one and develop another front for the Illuminati.

Woodsman of the World?
Elks?
Eagles?
Lions Club?
Rotary?
Kiwanis?

Just a few suggestions.

[The Operative]

The prison shrink diagnosed Ed with narcisstic personality disorder (which pleased Ed mightily - he kept nodding in agreement)

Ed Brown: "The narcissistic part of it is probably a little bit true."

I guess Ed doesn't get that NPD is polite psychiatrist speak for selfish prick.

[Demosthenes]

I'm on my blackberry at the airport waiting to fly back to the relative warmth of home. It'll be a few hours before I update the blog.

[silversopp]

Damn his eyes. How did he latch onto the Moose Lodge connection? Now we have to go back to square one and develop another front for the Illuminati.

We still have the Crimson Permanent Assurance Company right?