Brown trial, Part 2

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3532
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:26 pm

Jury instructions I've heard and seen basically hand the jury the responsibility for determining the credibility of a witness and it includes consideration of demeanor. Given the apparent behavior, Ed has done far more damage than good - except, of course in the only court he cares a whit about - the court of nutball opinion.

Demo - how are the jurors reacting?
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
Red Cedar PM
Burnished Vanquisher of the Kooloohs
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:10 pm

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby Red Cedar PM » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:30 pm

From Ed's testimony from his lawyer's questioning:

Demo's Blog wrote:He admitted building the pipebombs, the Goex grenades with nails, and the zip guns, but denied using the zip guns as booby trap devices. He thought the Tannerite baggies in the trees were “kind of benign”, the “safest way to do it without anyone getting hurt.”


I am no attorney, but I have to think the prosecutor would have raked him over the coals on this and his other booby traps on cross examination. What other purpose could his booby traps have had other than to maim and kill law enforcement personnel? How the hell could something packed with high explosive and shrapnel be "benign?" I didn't see anything in the blog about this on cross, but I hope he would have gotten slammed for it.
"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
cynicalflyer
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Half Way Between the Gutter And The Stars

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby cynicalflyer » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:06 pm

Defense rests in NH tax evaders' weapons trial

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99ACJV00

Both Sides Rest In Browns Trial
Jury Could Have Case By Afternoon
http://www.wmur.com/news/19991485/detail.html
Last edited by cynicalflyer on Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." -- General Henry M. Robert author, Robert's Rules of Order

User avatar
Thule
Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:57 am
Location: 71 degrees north

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby Thule » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:11 pm

LPC wrote:I just checked the websites created or frequented by Brown supporters to see what kind of reporting or commentary they were posting, and the results were pretty much what I expected: Nothing.


Also, the comment-section on Red Crayons is more or less devoid of Brown-supporters. All kinds of nuts swarmed that blace back during the trial of the Frivilous Four.
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby LPC » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:12 pm

Red Cedar PM wrote:From Ed's testimony from his lawyer's questioning:
Demo's Blog wrote:He admitted building the pipebombs, the Goex grenades with nails, and the zip guns, but denied using the zip guns as booby trap devices. He thought the Tannerite baggies in the trees were “kind of benign”, the “safest way to do it without anyone getting hurt.”

I am no attorney, but I have to think the prosecutor would have raked him over the coals on this and his other booby traps on cross examination. What other purpose could his booby traps have had other than to maim and kill law enforcement personnel? How the hell could something packed with high explosive and shrapnel be "benign?"

Contrary to what you see on television, the usual purpose of cross-examination is to get some kind of information from the witness. Arguing with the witness over the witness's characterization of events, or trying to get some sort of obviously damaging admission, or just trying to make the witness look bad, is usually a waste of time and can be counter-productive if it bores or alienates the jury.

So, if I were the prosecutor, I might want to clarify Ed's testimony to eliminate any ambiguity or uncertainty about what he was saying. I might ask him if he really meant to say that an explosive device packed with sharpnel was "benign," and if he said "yes," I would then move on to something else. I would argue the absurdity of the statement to the jury, and not to Ed.

More generally, I suspect that the goal of the prosecutor on cross-examination (and you always want to have a specific goal or set of goals) will be to undermine Ed's claim of benign intent by bringing out his violent past (specifically his conviction for assault while in the Navy, which according to Demo as omitted from his own biographical presentation), his violent statements before and during the stand-off, his understanding of the destructive power of the weapons he owned or built, and his failure to end the stand-off peacefully.

(Footnote: Prior "bad acts," such as the Navy assault, are usually not admissible to show a propensity towards violence, but I think that Ed has "opened the door" by testifying as to his history, his nature, his intentions, and his relationship with the government in general and the Navy in particular. I could wrong, but I think it will get into evidence if the government wants it in.)
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: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby LPC » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:13 pm

cynicalflyer wrote:Defense rests in NH tax evaders' weapons trial

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99ACJV00

It appears that Elaine did not testify, which is interesting.
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
cynicalflyer
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Half Way Between the Gutter And The Stars

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby cynicalflyer » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:18 pm

LPC wrote:It appears that Elaine did not testify, which is interesting.


I am partially wondering if Elaine's just holding out for a favorable sentencing recommendation and that Ed's testimony was enough to get out from underneath the mandatory-30-years charge(s).
"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." -- General Henry M. Robert author, Robert's Rules of Order

ErsatzAnatchist

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby ErsatzAnatchist » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:43 pm

Defense rested (both of them). Elaine did not testify. Closing arguments are happening now, then the jury will be charged. Doubtful if the jury will start deliberations today.

Ed did finish testifying, but I was not there for that.

User avatar
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:19 pm

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby Dezcad » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:44 pm

cynicalflyer wrote:Both Sides Rest In Browns Trial
Jury Could Have Case By Afternoon
http://www.wmur.com/news/19991485/detail.html


So now we know what was in the elevator shaft. Interesting.

User avatar
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1539
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby Quixote » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:12 pm

From the WMUR story:
A juror was dismissed on Tuesday without explanation. The remaining 13 were ordered not to speculate why he was dismissed.


We, however, can speculate to our heart's content. Did a jury nullifier get to him? Did Ed's testimony make him nauseous?
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat

User avatar
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:19 pm

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby Dezcad » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:27 pm

Quixote wrote:From the WMUR story:
A juror was dismissed on Tuesday without explanation. The remaining 13 were ordered not to speculate why he was dismissed.


We, however, can speculate to our heart's content. Did a jury nullifier get to him? Did Ed's testimony make him nauseous?


Maybe he purposely got dismissed to surreptitiously go check out the elevator shaft and see if anything was still there. :)

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6335
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby wserra » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:55 pm

LPC wrote:But won't the judge allow the prosecution to argue to the jury that Ed's argumentativeness (I checked, and there is such a word) and unwillingness to answer questions undermines his credibility?


Demeanor on the stand is fair game for any witness in any trial.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

mutter

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby mutter » Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:45 pm

Does the gov. contend he set these devises before or after the "seige" began?

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4938
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:07 pm

mutter wrote:Does the gov. contend he set these devises before or after the "seige" began?


Does it matter? The issue is whether or not the :Browns had a right to set them AT ALL.
"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

ErsatzAnatchist

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby ErsatzAnatchist » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:47 am

Quixote wrote:From the WMUR story:
A juror was dismissed on Tuesday without explanation. The remaining 13 were ordered not to speculate why he was dismissed.


We, however, can speculate to our heart's content. Did a jury nullifier get to him? Did Ed's testimony make him nauseous?

Instead of listening to the testimony, he was staring at Scoop, drooling.

You will have to ask Scoop if he contacted her yet to ask her out. :wink:

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6335
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby wserra » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:05 pm

Scoop on summations, followed by the usual Haasshit.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

mutter

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby mutter » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:11 pm

Pottapaug1938 wrote:
mutter wrote:Does the gov. contend he set these devises before or after the "seige" began?


Does it matter? The issue is whether or not the :Browns had a right to set them AT ALL.

As you suggesting we do not have teh right to defend our property by any means we feel like?
Being civilized we do need boundries of course, we cant have people setting land mines.

the question was cos the gov contended they did it to kill or injure the Feds. So if these devices where done before the seige that theory goes out the window.

User avatar
cynicalflyer
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Half Way Between the Gutter And The Stars

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby cynicalflyer » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:57 pm

Browns convicted on all counts

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99B3PGO4

They refused to stand when the jury and judge left the courtroom.
Last edited by cynicalflyer on Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." -- General Henry M. Robert author, Robert's Rules of Order

User avatar
cynicalflyer
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Half Way Between the Gutter And The Stars

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby cynicalflyer » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:04 pm

Also, the jury appears to have taken a hard look at Elaine's role in this.

http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10670772
NH jury asks about some Brown testimony

Associated Press - July 9, 2009 2:25 PM ET

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - The jury deliberating the weapons case against convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown has asked questions about testimony involving Mrs. Brown.

...

Mrs. Brown's lawyer maintained she played no active role in plans to harm agents. The jury on Thursday asked to hear the transcript of testimony concerning her comments on a radio program.
"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." -- General Henry M. Robert author, Robert's Rules of Order

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4938
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Brown trial, Part 2

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:10 pm

mutter wrote:As you suggesting we do not have teh right to defend our property by any means we feel like?
Being civilized we do need boundries of course, we cant have people setting land mines.

the question was cos the gov contended they did it to kill or injure the Feds. So if these devices where done before the seige that theory goes out the window.


First, I'm not suggesting, I am coming right out and saying that we do NOT have the right to defend our property "by any means we feel like". For example, I do NOT have the right to set up machine gun nests at each corner of my property, and an anti-tank gun pointing out the front door.

Second, what the :Browns did was unlawful whether or not it was before the siege. Besides, if you really think that the :Browns didn't do what they did with the Feds in mind, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
"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


Return to “Public Archives -- Read Only”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest