Minutes before an undercover team of U.S. marshals captured Ed Brown on the front porch of his fortified Plainfield home, he told one of the agents officials wouldn't arrest him, according to the marshal, who testified at Brown's trial for conspiracy and weapons possession yesterday.
"He said, 'They're afraid to arrest me. If they arrest me, the marshal is going to die, the chief of police is going to die, the sheriff is going to die. It's going to be a war,' " said W.S. Robinson, the unarmed marshal who restrained Brown and brought him into custody.
Ed and his wife, Elaine, were arrested Oct. 4, 2007, after a nearly nine-month standoff with federal agents at the concrete, castle-like home. Throughout the standoff, the couple issued threats against law enforcement figures and promised a shootout if anyone tried to arrest them. They are being tried together in federal court on 11 felony charges and face virtual life sentences.
Their lawyers say the Browns were armed only because they believed federal marshals wanted to kill them.
A narrative of the arrest has emerged through public statements by the couple. Robinson's testimony yesterday, illustrated by photographs and a videotape recorded minutes after the arrest, added new details. It was the first time any representative of the U.S. Marshals Service had commented publicly about the operation.
The takedown
Robinson described how agents entered the property largely without weapons. He and another man were unarmed, one man had a handgun, and a fourth marshal carried a Taser. A fifth man, a confidential informant the couple knew as "Dutch," did not carry a weapon.
They came with supplies the couple had requested from a West Lebanon commercial property that was once Elaine Brown's dental office. Although agents arrived with a truck bed full of supplies, Robinson said the Browns behaved distrustfully. As four of the men unloaded the truck into a garage, Robinson said Ed Brown kept his distance and held an assault rifle at waist height, sweeping it from man to man.
"He said pretty early on, 'I don't know you all very well. I don't trust you,' " Robinson said.
Only after the men had unloaded the supplies did Brown let his guard down. He put away his rifle, asked the men to pick up a fifth marshal - left in West Lebanon as a lookout - and suggested a celebration. But he kept a pistol tucked in the waistband of his pants, Robinson said.
Brown brought beer to the front porch and was chatting with Robinson and one other agent while Dutch and another marshal returned to West Lebanon. It was during this conversation that Brown remarked about his lengthy freedom from arrest.
Elaine Brown joined the group when the other marshals returned with pizza, but Robinson said she too was wary. He said she came out to the porch twice, training a handgun on the guests.
According to Robinson, the couple were eating and drinking on the porch when the team decided to make its move. The marshals had agreed they would try to make the arrests if anyone used the code word "party." Robinson gave the command. He had seated himself between the Browns and close to Ed Brown's right arm, and he was feeding pizza to the couple's young German shepherd, Zoe.
"I said Zoe is eating so much pizza, she must think she's having a party," Robinson said.
Then, Robinson said, he grabbed for Brown's arm while a second man helped him pin Brown against the wall.
"We had Mr. Brown pinned up against the wall," Robinson said. "He put up a pretty good fight. He was struggling to get away, to reach for his gun."
The other two marshals quickly restrained and handcuffed Elaine Brown. After she was secured, the man with the Taser shocked Ed Brown so marshals could put him in handcuffs, Robinson said. (next page »)
Beckapalooza: half revival, half AA meeting has reached 25 comments. Join the discussion!
BOSTON (AP) -- Officials in New England's coastal areas…
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- William Smart, who was devastated…
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- Two men are free on bail after…
Comments
Plastic bullets, yeah right
By ShamanSaid - 07/05/2009 - 9:33 pmDoes anybody really believe that these federal snipers in Ghilli suits were firing plastic bullets?
I do not, because they were not firing plastic bullets but this is the kind of crap cover-up you get when you don't have a vigilant media and well-informed population to press them on the details at the outset.
Now that they've had time to concoct their cover-up and get all their people on the same page and carefully examine all reports, media accounts, video, etc AND they are fairly sure it can't be adequately rebuked especially by mainstream media sources who seem to never question official statements made by Feds or police.
The words ludicrous and ridiculous come to mind when I read this about "plastic bullets'" being used. Because the cotterpin to the Brown defense is fear of lethal force similar to Waco and Ruby Ridge. These liars needed to be sure to off-set that with this absurd claim of using plastic bullets.
There is no way in the world and if I had a farm I would bet that on this - that ** THEY DID NOT USE PLASTIC BULLETS **.
to vote
the Browns
By Mystery Tramp - 07/03/2009 - 2:29 pmDo you really believe this pair of fruitcakes is worth the time you have taken over them? Can't you find something of more immediate relevance to the interests of your readers to report?
to vote
When Courts Refused to Follow the Law, (Continued)
By RaymondKarczewski - 07/03/2009 - 11:10 amHere are excerpts from the Court Docket ducking the question of JURISDICTION CHALLENGE by Ed and Elaine Brown standing in Common Law and Constitutional Law.
U.S. District Court
District of New Hampshire (Concord)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cr-00030-GZS All Defendants
Case title: USA v. Brown et al
Date Filed: 01/21/2009
Assigned to: Judge George Z. Singal
Defendant (1)Edward Brown
represented by Michael J. Iacopino
Designation: CJA Appointment
Defendant (2)Elaine Brown
represented by Bjorn R. Lange
Federal Defender's Office
05/19/2009 83 * AFFIDAVIT of Edward-Lewis:Brown and Elaine-Alice:Brown of Facts to Challenge Jurisdiction (dae) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
06/15/2009 118 AFFIDAVIT of Edward-Lewis:Brown and Elaine-Alice:Brown Demanding Release Due to Refusal of Court and US Attorney to Submit Proof of Jurisdiction by Edward and Elaine Brown (dae) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/29/2009 149 ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown denying: 97 Affidavit of Government Fraud, 111 Affidavit of Government Fraud, 112 Affidavit of Facts for Release of Creditors, 117 Affidavit of Truth, 118 Affidavit Demanding Release Due to Refusal of Court and US Attorney to Submit Proof of Jurisdiction, 119 Notice of Objection - re jury sequestration. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
It has been said, "Render to Caesar that which is Caesars, and to God that is Gods"
Caesar is the Fiction. Those who willingly consent to the jurisidiction of the Fictional Caesar through adhesion contracts are duty bound to Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Those who have not consented to, or have withdrawn from all previous unlawful contracts made with the fictional Caesar on the basis of fraud and complete lack of disclosure, are not bound to Caesar in any way.
Simple, is it not? Is not Heaven and Hell on Earth a matter of choices made by the men and women who make them? Ed and Elaine Brown have made them.
It is when the masses of sleeping sheeple who awaken to the Tyranny of Caesar remove themselves from the Adhesion contract which binds them to Caesar that all this SATANIC NEW WORLD ORDER nonsense will end. " .And the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth".
America: Demand that the Court answer the question of JURISDICTION and halt all court processes until they do so!
ONLY IN A LAND OF TYRANNY DOES ARBITRARY DENIAL CONSTITUTE AN OFFER OF PROOF.
Raymond Ronald Karczewski
to vote
When Courts Refuse to Follow the Law, there is Only Tyranny
By RaymondKarczewski - 07/03/2009 - 11:08 amWhen Courts Refused to Follow the Law, there is Only Tyranny by Consent.
By Raymond Ronald Karczewski
to vote
Judges are taught a lesson by other judges on the collateral.
By JosephSHaas - 07/03/2009 - 2:03 pmRay, I hear what you're saying of calling this an "Administrative Contract Court" because until the Congress does "ordain* and establish" these "inferior Courts" by Article III, Section I of the United States Constitution, there can be no "judicial Power of the United States" within this Art. I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Place" UNTIL that* happens.
The that* being to have been ordained, and so to see that word as highlighted over at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html gets to: http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ORDAIN for the quote of: "Ordain
ordain v. 2. To order by or as if by decree. [
to vote
Hey "I got short-sheeted"! (;-)
By JosephSHaas - 07/03/2009 - 2:07 pmIt was because of that triangle, not "The Bermuda Triangle", but that sign from when I did copy and paste from that "Constitution of the United States" website over to the definition of the word: ordain. So here's the rest:
"So in other words Congress did "establish" as in "To cause to be RE-cognized and accepted" BY us inhabitants of the state of New Hampshire, (emphasis ADDed), but when was it ever first ordained as to be at first cognized, so that we could re-congize? Or in other words: WHEN did they/ the Feds ever first ACCEPT our offer of conditional consent? NEVER! They have FAILed to provide the 40USC255 papers as required by the "shall" word in our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1.
Thus, from what you did write in your paragraph #1: we are seeing it unfold right now before our very eyes: THIS judge is in contempt of case-laws, re: both the Hagens case 15US533 and the Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 case of (1980), for NOT providing the proof of jurisdictional authority, as the burden of proof is upon the court. There might be a sanction of sentence imposed by him, contrary to the Standard v. Olsen case 74Sup.Ct.768. But that: ""Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack."
Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471." And as I've indicated here in my Archives or over at the New Hampshire Underground, by the Title ___ U.S. Code Section ____, you've got to file a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the SAME court that sentenced you, for a different judge, and if he or she is also corrupt, THEN you're allowed by Rule 63 I think it is, of The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (found by Reno), to THEN file at the U.S. District Court of WHERE you're physically located in that F.C.I./ Federal "Correctional" Facility, where YOU are the teacher to them as the students being corrected, to send them a bill of $x,xxx,xxx.xx for your teaching later. (;-) "
to vote
Have these "team members" of position met the required standard?
By JosephSHaas - 07/03/2009 - 10:23 amMargot, come on, why do I have to be like "Paul Harvey" and give the readers here "The Rest of The Story"? You should do this, it's your job, isn't it?
WHERE did these "special operat"ors "FOR the U.S. Marshals Service" under the command of David Robertson come from"? (emphasis ADDed for not "of", but "for" as to what? Imply that they were not members of The "Service" but to assist them from some other unnamed branch of the federal government?) Either way they came from The Air Force National Guard property at: 10 Benning St Ste 6, West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402 Tel. (603) 298-6587 http://www.manta.com/company/mmcnq6b See map at: http://www.manta.com/company/mmcnq6b
So the federal government owns that property at Map #__, Lot #__ right? By deed. of 19___ And the Adjutant General is it's chief, right? Re: Article 46, Part 2, N.H. Constitution http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html who is "nominated and appointed by the governor and council" and takes the RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, right? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm No wonder Kenneth Clark, Retired now AFTER this incident refused to talk with me last year on his base behind WENDY"S on The Heights in Concord. He's a double-agent!
"Ver are yer paypas" General? Your 40USC255 papers that are supposed to be on file with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution of which "Consent" was offered to your federal outfit on June 14, 1883 but that was conditional as not a gift but for an exchange! http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and * Even the U.S. Attorney KNOWS this by his Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm but does otherwise!
* = See also: The 1943 case as cited by Bob Schulz over at: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."
So the State Police from Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire were there as "back-up" eh? Back up for what? If Ed started shooting rounds of ammunition into the bodies of Feds then to "protect" the Feds? Read Article 12 of our Bill of Rights http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "Nor are the inhabitants of this state CONTROLLABLE** by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." (emphasis ADDed for this word.)
Did any of these defense attorneys ask this "commander" Robertson WHERE he got his "authority" from? Did they on the first day of trial even ask Monier for a copy of his oath of office and ask him what it meant to execute only "lawful precepts" in line #__ thereof? Is Ed going down a funnel to hell or what!?
The word control** means "To exercise a regulating influence over; direct". It is a power to dominate. WHEN, if ever, did we give the Feds the power, capacity, role or position***to have dominion over us?
*** footnote (continued below).
to vote
continuation of the *** footnote:
By JosephSHaas - 07/03/2009 - 10:24 am*** You write that "team members positioned" themselves "in the woods", but was this an appropriate place for them on PRIVATE soil? Was it proper? In their eyes: yes, as the decorous of their dress, but that what is within them stinks to high heaven! They have FAILed to meet the "requisite standard"! And their partners in crime are the Lebanon P.D. who received them for which they provided none of this Art. 12 protection to those who had paid for this protection by the payment of their property taxes there too.
I did mention this to the City Council that night of June 6, 2007 not knowing that this break-in that afternoon had already occurred, the "team" of federal agents having been under-cover then, and by pre or post-alert to the Lebanon Police? of like if pre, of not to arrest them, or post, of they had badges to prove who they were if caught as burglars by some on-duty local COP? Either way: The Adj. Gen. to answer!
to vote
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
By Hunter Dan - 07/03/2009 - 7:01 amThis is a great way to start my day! On the one hand, I hope this trial is over soon and these two are behind bars.
On the other hand, I'll miss waking up to my daily dose of humor over their antics at the trial.
to vote
Identity Crisis
By C. dog e. doGy - 07/03/2009 - 6:05 pmWhich one were you Dan in "Easy Rider", the red necks who took care of those hippy freedom boys with their pick-up truck and shotgun?
- C. dog stays clear of those who disdain those who live freely
to vote
Nothing worse than a
By tribrats - 07/03/2009 - 9:50 amNothing worse than a dangerous, armed coward. They should have taken him out that first attempt.
to vote
Nothing worse than fall-in-line feline fascists
By C. dog e. doGy - 07/03/2009 - 5:51 pmGoose steppin' Tribe Rats never misses a good, pro-fascist movie with the happy ending of killing those who try to live freely. This explains her picture thingy.
- C. dog, by contrast, enjoys a good Clint movie of a Saturday night
to vote
DOG
By DIRTY HARRY - 07/03/2009 - 6:25 pmI hear ya Dog.
to vote
Don't lose your daily dose
By webhick - 07/03/2009 - 9:14 amI admit that I and many others have been eagerly awaiting this trial and it hasn't disappointed. The bittersweet news is that long after E&E are locked away, there'll be more idiots just like them to fill the void. This kind of nonsense is never going to go away.
If you're interested getting more Ed & Elaine, Bombs, Taxes, and Red Crayons is also covering the trial. If you truly enjoy reading about this stuff, I think you'd fit right in over at the Quatloos forum. I started hanging out there back when E&E had their tax trial and I wild horses can't drag me away.
All that being said, Margot has done a fantastic job of covering this entire fiasco.
to vote
The "Truth Commission" to oust these outlaws!
By JosephSHaas - 07/03/2009 - 1:24 pmThank you webnick. I had met J.J. before there on federal turf and over at Reme's Restaurant across Pleasant Street, and find this July 2 report by her "very" interesting! Especially of this "Special Operations Group" (SOG) http://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/ops.htm out of "Tactical Operations Division" with their "small, full-time operational cadre stationed at the Marshals Service Tactical Operations Center at Camp Beauregard, LA." http://www.la.ngb.army.mil/ map at: http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Camp%20Beauregard&state=LA
Now we're getting somewhere, because: "The division serves as the primary point of contact between the Office of the Director and the districts,".
So who is this Director? because: "Whenever the Marshals Service
to vote