Browns allowed daily meetings

Couple map defense without an attorney
article tools

A federal judge has given his blessing for Ed and Elaine Brown to enjoy daily, supervised visits at the Strafford County jail so the couple can coordinate defense strategies on their own behalf against a multitude of felony charges alleging conspiracy, weapons possession and obstruction of justice.

The couple were charged earlier this year for their conduct during a nearly nine-month standoff at their fortified Plainfield home. The Browns evaded arrest while entertaining guests, threatening law enforcement officers, and stockpiling weapons and homemade bombs, prosecutors say, and were ultimately arrested in October 2007 by an undercover team of U.S. marshals posing as supporters.

During separate arraignments last month, the Browns disputed the legitimacy of the charges against them and of the court overseeing their case. They refused to enter pleas and declined the services of court-appointed attorneys. Elaine Brown told the judge she did not wish to attend any future hearings or her trial.

But in a motion filed with the court last week, Elaine Brown asked that she be allowed to meet with her husband to plan their defense. In a response submitted Tuesday, prosecutors said the U.S. Marshals Service, which is supervising the Browns as they await charges, was instructed to facilitate daily meetings.

"The defendants will be allowed to meet privately with each other for at least one hour per day, seven days per week," the motion said, adding that attempts will be made to extend the meetings to two hours.

"While the defendants are together, they will be monitored visually by jail personnel but their conversations will not be monitored," it said.

The motion also indicated that the Browns would have shared access to the jail's law library and government discovery documents.

In an order signed yesterday, Judge George Singal said the jail should continue to let the Browns meet.

The couple have been separated since their arrest in October 2007, and they were reunited during a brief meeting on the day of their arraignments. The prosecution motion said the couple's daily meetings in jail have already begun.

The Browns virtually face life sentences if they are convicted of all of the charges against them. Ed Brown, 66, and Elaine Brown, 68, are serving 63-month sentences for tax-related crimes. One of the new charges - of possessing destructive devices - carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years in prison, on top of any penalties from the other charges.

At the time of the Browns' arrest, dozens of explosive devices, including pipe bombs, gunpowder grenades, homemade mines and exploding rifle targets, were found inside their house, prosecutors said. During the trial of three supporters last year, a technician from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives testified that Ed Brown's fingerprints had been found on several of the devices.

The Browns' trial is scheduled for April.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Bottom Line Is

While it's a bit tricky because they are incarcerated but what Ed and Elaine Brown need to do is stop operating their STRAWMAN legal fictions which is what is subject to the statutes and is WHAT IS BEING CHARGED.

If they would not step in as the surety for ED and ELAINE BROWN this would disappear quickly. That said, ANY LITTLE SLIP and they are gonners. That is anyway they can get them to slip up and provide prima facie evidence that they indeed are the operators of the defendants charged and its over.

I would start off by walking into court and from the bar raise my RIGHT HAND left hand over my heart and say something like "FOR AND ON THE RECORD I STAND HERE A FLESH AND BLOOD MAN AND I AM NOT OPERATING THE DEFENDANT AND ANY ACTIONS I MAY HAVE TAKEN PROVIDING ANY INDICATIONS TO THE CONTRARY ARE RESCINDED AND WAS MADE DUE TO MY LACK OF LEGAL EXPERTISE AS I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN LAW". Then I would ask the court recorder to please read back my statement.

That is simple, but without knowing much it can be effective. Otherwise they may try the techniques of Jack and Margy Flynn: http://www.citizensoftheamericanconstitution.org/homepage.htm

Anonymous's picture

Yes, taxes are mandatory.

Yes, taxes are mandatory. The way it's written is that you HAVE to pay taxes. The part that these idiots are centering on is that it's VOLUNTARY to send the money owed RATHER THAN have someone come to you and take it. Instead of only reading what you want, how about reading the law in it's entirety? You just sound uneducated by perpetuating these falsities.

tribrats's picture

The Browns

There is NO LAW that you have to pay an income tax, just watch Freedom to Fascism. The IRS is a privately owned extortionist orginization which is owned by the FEDERAL RESERVE and the Rockefeller family and a host of bankster criminals. The FED and the IRS are privately owned wake up you total brainwashed fools. Private citizens have made the people of this country their SLAVES and most of you don't even know it. Just look at how many people Obama has appointed to postions and they haven't paid any taxes, that is because they know that there is no such thing as an INCOME TAX. END THE FED/ END THE IRS. WAKE UP SLAVES YOU ARE NOT FREE!!!

Anonymous's picture

Hey anon 22:35 . . .

. . . ?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

What does any of your post mean? They refused to pay their taxes, therefore they're guilty of not paying their taxes. Case closed. No ammount of anti-government, anarchist, militia-mentality mumbo-jumbo will change that.

Hunter Dan's picture

You supporters are a Joke

There are no PENAL CODES in NH, they are called REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED. And although you might think there the same, they are not. Ed and Elaine will not be granted "field trips" to the Superior Court so they can further make a mockery of the proceedings to which they will ultimately LOSE. And, they have already been found guilty, so they are in fact "Co-defendants." Which by the way, should not and does not constitute daily grab-ass sessions. The Judge no doubtedly has allowed this, to show they have been afforded every option to mount a defense, prior to their finding of GUILTY AS CHARGED. No other person would ever be allowed this right, so they are already ahead of the game. I can just imagine the smug look on there faces, as the sit in there MAXIMUM SECURITY CELLS, pipe dreaming of sitting on the porch after this is done, when in fact, the only time they will be free is after they serve their LIFE sentences for the crimes to which they have committed. How embarrassed their families must be, and you supporters should be as well. To question the very law that gives you the right to protest. You should be ashamed, and in fact, leave this country for you are all deserters. Punishable by """"""". P.S. Joe Haas, once again, NICE TRY! Maybe you should be their attorney, public records indicate you spent your fair share of time in the court room answering charges brought on by the STATE.

Anonymous's picture

If the Browns dispute the

If the Browns dispute the legitimacy of the charges against them and of the court overseeing their case, if they refuse to enter pleas and decline the services of court-appointed attorneys, and if they do not wish to attend any future hearings or their trial, then why on earth would they want to coordinate defense strategies? This is obviously a farce in the making, an opportunity for them to continue thumbing their noses at the legal system at taxpayer expsense.

Anonymous's picture

Sad but they will likely be railroaded once again

I hope they can get a fair shake and make the best defense possible, a crime without a victim is not a crime - this is supposedly a free country yet we lock up more per capita than any other nation precisely due to this victimless crime stuff and the ignorance of people going to court.

The bottom line is when you walk into court and the judge asks for the defendant to please rise and step forward, he's really asking who will be operating the strawman defendant in this matter. Poor Ed and Elaine will more than likely step in as surety for the charges against the legal fictions ED and ELAINE BROWN. That will be their first mistake. Next the judge will read the charges and ask if they understand the charges. If they say yes that will be their second big mistake - what the judge really is asking is do you STAND UNDER the charges in this matter.

The judge will read the charges will be penal code statutes along with their names and ask for a plea. If they enter one, that will be their third mistake and THE DEATH KNELL. Because the entire matter at that point will be resolved as far as the court is concerned and the rest will be a dog and pony show so that observers will be none the wiser.

Reason is simple, you need to do a pre-plea discovery in order to put the facts and evidence in for the judge to consider PRIOR to making a plea. If not, all that the judge is looking at is the penal codes - no question there those codes are clearly on the books and the defendant's name and they stepped in as surety for it so again no question there, CASE CLOSED GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Anonymous's picture

Coward

How did this guy get in jail? Isn't this the "THEY'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE! THEY HAVE A FIGHT ON THEIR HANDS!" LOL some fight Eddie! You surrendered like a little girl!!! This guy is a coward who manipulated his not so bright wife to support him while he ran arouindin the woods playing guns with his other unemployed buddies. It's not complicated. It's really not.

Anonymous's picture

I can't wait . . .

For the trial!!! It promises to be filled with hilarity and offer us many a good laugh in these tough economic times, as we watch the two of them try and wriggle out of their responsibilities as citizens! Bring it on, Ed and Elaine - give it your best shot - I guarantee it won't be good enough to fool the court!

Hunter Dan's picture

Re: Let them design the rocket in the lab, but refuse them launc

I disagree. If they wanted a real attorney, they should have hired one. Just because they chose to represent themselves doesn't entitle them to special privileges. If we let them do as suggested, I have no doubt from their previous actions that they would try to flee. They've already proven themselves to be a flight risk and dishonest about their intentions.

tribrats's picture

Defense

What defense, they won't have much to talk about!!

Anonymous's picture

Let them design the rocket in the lab, but refuse them launch pa

This is good, but not great. There is a case that outlines the guarantee of "access to the courts". Knowing what to write and say is one thing, but to deliver it at the right time, and in the correct manner is a skill one learns first by observation. My suggestion is that, even though they are federal prisoners in a county facility, they also be allowed to visit the courthouse next door to observe HOW attorneys handle their cases in the courtroom to pick up tips on what to do in Concord next month. Especially since when assigned a Bar Association attorney he or she already knows HOW to do this by both training in observation AND participating in mock trials while in school, and in on- the- job training for a time as a paralegal before they are licensed. There is the constitutional guarantee of "equal" rights, right? JSH

JosephSHaas's picture

Don't miss this