The Brown criminal trial

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Demosthenes » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:47 pm

webhick wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:Greetings from New Hampshire.


I see you brought the sun with you.


Sort of. My plan had to circle the airport for more than a hour late last night, trying to sneak in through a break in the storm.
Demo.
User avatar
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
 
Posts: 5717
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:11 pm

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby webhick » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:09 pm

Demosthenes wrote:
webhick wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:Greetings from New Hampshire.


I see you brought the sun with you.


Sort of. My plan had to circle the airport for more than a hour late last night, trying to sneak in through a break in the storm.


With the amount of rain we've had lately, I'm surprised a plane was able to sneak through at all.
“He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.” - Hunter S. Thompson
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
 
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Demosthenes » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:15 pm

webhick wrote:With the amount of rain we've had lately, I'm surprised a plane was able to sneak through at all.


I've been waiting two years for the trial. That plane was going to fricken' land.
Demo.
User avatar
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
 
Posts: 5717
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:11 pm

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:20 pm

webhick wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:Sort of. My plan had to circle the airport for more than a hour late last night, trying to sneak in through a break in the storm.


With the amount of rain we've had lately, I'm surprised a plane was able to sneak through at all.


I'm surprised that Demo didn't need to fly in on a seaplane.... :)
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
 
Posts: 4031
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: West of Provincetown, but east of North Adams. South of Salisbury, but north of Aquinnah.

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Red Cedar PM » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:55 pm

webhick wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:Greetings from New Hampshire.


I see you brought the sun with you.


All we need - further proof of illuminati weather control.
"Pride cometh before thy fall."

--Dantonio 11:03:07

Grixit wrote:Hey Diller: forget terms like "wages", "income", "derived from", "received", etc. If you did something, and got paid for it, you owe tax.
User avatar
Red Cedar PM
Burnished Vanquisher of the Kooloohs
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:10 pm

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby wserra » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:14 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:Something tells me some of the people on the defense witness list will be asked to recount what they heard the defendants say about their fears.


The most important factor determining the admissibility of so-called "state of mind" hearsay (FRE 803(3)) is contemporaneity - the statement must show the declarant's state of mind at the time of the event, not at some time later. IOW, only statements of the Browns' at the time of the happening of the relevant events supposedly causing them to fear have a chance of being admitted. I stick to what I said - for this defense to have a snowball's chance in hell, they have to testify. There is a good discussion in United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004).
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
 
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Gregg » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:16 pm

Red Cedar PM wrote:
All we need - further proof of illuminati weather control.


Doesn't matter how much proof they have, as long as we have enough corrupt judges to rig the trials!
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Gregg » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:18 pm

wserra wrote:
Judge Roy Bean wrote:Something tells me some of the people on the defense witness list will be asked to recount what they heard the defendants say about their fears.


The most important factor determining the admissibility of so-called "state of mind" hearsay (FRE 803(3)) is contemporaneity - the statement must show the declarant's state of mind at the time of the event, not at some time later. IOW, only statements of the Browns' at the time of the happening of the relevant events supposedly causing them to fear have a chance of being admitted. I stick to what I said - for this defense to have a snowball's chance in hell, they have to testify. There is a good discussion in United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004).



I have to wonder if Ed is trying to figure out how to put himself on the stand, in abstentia, since he refuses to go the to the trial (although it looks like he lets his straw man go).
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby ErsatzAnatchist » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:41 pm

Gregg wrote:I have to wonder if Ed is trying to figure out how to put himself on the stand, in abstentia, since he refuses to go the to the trial (although it looks like he lets his straw man go).


Unfortunately for Ed, they have some pretty good evidence against Ed's straw man related to the armed standoff. Take a look of Prosecution Exhibit 22-A:

Image

Another problem with the defense is that the police also used their straw men in the investigation. Here is a picture of straw man of one of the U.S. Marshalls filming the compound after the arrest:

Image
The human mind can withstand almost limitless amounts of pain - so long as that pain is in someone else's body. - Wserra

Oh well, when you can’t be right, you can at least waste someone else’s time with meaningless nonsense. - notorial dissent
User avatar
ErsatzAnatchist
An Illuminati of One
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:00 am

wserra wrote:
Judge Roy Bean wrote:Something tells me some of the people on the defense witness list will be asked to recount what they heard the defendants say about their fears.


The most important factor determining the admissibility of so-called "state of mind" hearsay (FRE 803(3)) is contemporaneity - the statement must show the declarant's state of mind at the time of the event, not at some time later. IOW, only statements of the Browns' at the time of the happening of the relevant events supposedly causing them to fear have a chance of being admitted. I stick to what I said - for this defense to have a snowball's chance in hell, they have to testify. There is a good discussion in United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004).


The Cianci case involved a tape of Cianci himself discussing his allegedly upstanding way of conducting the city's business with someone he thought was a Federal Agent. Clearly those statements could have been self-serving as well as deliberately misleading in the context under which they were made especially at the time they were made.

My view is that counsel for the Browns will put other people on the stand who were at the Brown's compound during the siege and can recount their contemporaneous conversations with them. I think it's reasonable to believe those will include statements about things the Browns said to them regarding their fear of the ebil gubment and what would happen to them if they surrendered.

Clearly counsel has already raised the issue. For all we know, there may be unpublished email exchanges that support the theory.

What else have they got? Joe Haas? :roll:
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Gregg » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:26 am

How would anything anyone else said not be hearsay?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Nikki » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:02 am

There is no need for the members of Brown: family stupid to call witnesses who will repeat the witnesses' versions of what they heard.

E&E can testify as to what they said and what they felt. After that, they can call the relevant witnesses to corroborate THEIR testimony.

However, any testimony is subject to cross examination and to the prosecutor reaming new ones.
Nikki
 

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Demosthenes » Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:57 am

Demo.
User avatar
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
 
Posts: 5717
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:11 pm

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby LPC » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:05 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:My view is that counsel for the Browns will put other people on the stand who were at the Brown's compound during the siege and can recount their contemporaneous conversations with them. I think it's reasonable to believe those will include statements about things the Browns said to them regarding their fear of the ebil gubment and what would happen to them if they surrendered.

I wonder if those witnesses will have counsel advising them about the definition of "conspiracy" and the possible consequences of those witnesses admitting that they were in the Brown compound talking to the Browns about their plans for the U.S. Marshals and the reasons for those plans.

I don't think that the government should intimidate witnesses, but I also don't think that the government should necessarily exonerate witnesses who happen to testify for the defense.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby LPC » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:14 am

Demosthenes wrote:http://www.redcrayons.net/

Wow! Ed and Elaine showed up?

And Elaine was armed when she was arrested in 2006?

And where can I get a US Constitution Ranger mousepad?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:34 am

Nikki wrote:There is no need for the members of Brown: family stupid to call witnesses who will repeat the witnesses' versions of what they heard.

E&E can testify as to what they said and what they felt. After that, they can call the relevant witnesses to corroborate THEIR testimony.

However, any testimony is subject to cross examination and to the prosecutor reaming new ones.


Which is why the Browns won't testify, Nikki. The objective is, IMHO, to infuse the jury with a sense of dread on the part of the Browns. In their minds, anything they did, and especially anything that was done on their behalf, will be couched in terms that it was done as a result of their deeply-held belief that surrender would result in some kind of violent act on the part of the ebil gubment in retribution for the embarrassment caused by the Browns being able to get out of their clutches.

As goofy as that sounds, remember all they have to do is get a juror to somehow empathize with that mental state.

I give them a one in thirteen chance. 8)
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Nikki » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:42 am

Are any of the Brown: Family UCC's exhibits or witnesses likely to actually to appear before the jury?

If not, all the jury will get to see (and hear) is cranky Ed blathering.
Nikki
 

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:49 am

Nikki wrote:Are any of the Brown: Family UCC's exhibits or witnesses likely to actually to appear before the jury?

If not, all the jury will get to see (and hear) is cranky Ed blathering.


Not sure - Demo would know more about what is or isn't in, but I can't imagine the Judge has allowed any of UCC gibberish into evidence.

Barring a witness is problematic.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby LPC » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:02 am

Gregg wrote:How would anything anyone else said not be hearsay?

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, one of which is "state of mind."

If the "justification defense" that Elaine (or at least Elaine's counsel) seems to be aiming for is based on Elaine's subjective understanding of threats, then testimony as to Elaine's out-of-court statements that are relevant to Elaine's state of mind would be admissible.

But!

If the justification defense requires evidence of an *objective* (and not merely subjective) threat, then evidence of Elaine's state of mind is NOT necessarily relevant, and can be excluded unless there is objective evidence of a threat for which Elaine was expressing her fear.

In other words, if Elaine can justify her actions based on her own fears, no matter how irrational or paranoid, then the hearsay evidence is admissible. But if Elaine must prove a rational and factual basis for her fears, then the admissibility of her out-of-court statements of her fears is suspect.

Inquiring minds want to know.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: The Brown criminal trial

Postby jg » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:15 am

Demosthenes wrote:http://www.redcrayons.net/

After reading about the Browns, when I continued down and read the next article (which was quite enjoyable) it was not apparent what sentence, if any, Michael Irving ever received.
Please help the readers with another entry that describes the sentence given in that case, thanks.
User avatar
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Public Archives -- Read Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests