Ed Brown’s Personal BackgroundWed Jun 13, 2007 02:23
Ed Brown’s Personal Background
The following are the facts according to Ed Brown and the Court Record.
Statements attributable directly by Brown are in quotations.
1959 (Age 17): Joined the Navy. Dishonorable Discharge. Assault with a deadly weapon.
Spent Six months in jail. “Promised myself never to break another law.”
1963 (Age 21): Married
1965 (Age 23): Governor’s Full Pardon
1967 (Age 25): Divorced from first wife
1967-1979 (Age 25-37): “A job a month”
1971 (Age 29): Married second wife
1979 (Age 37): School for cosmetology.
1979 (Age 37): Divorced from second wife
1979-1984 (Age 37-42): “Homeless”
1984 (Age 42): Exterminator. “Credited with completely eliminating termites and roaches at the Long Beach Navy Yard”
1985-1993 (Age 43-51): Exterminator doing business in New Hampshire
1991 (Age 49): Married Elaine
1992-1993 (Age 50-51): “I was deeply disturbed over Waco. I was paranoid for one year. I read a lot. I learned about the illuminati and the new world order. I determined there was a criminal element within the Administration, the Executive Branch.”
1994 (Age 52): “I formed the Un-American Activities Investigations Commission. We petitioned the FBI for redress of certain criminal acts by people in the administration, including the flow of drugs from South America into America through Keesler Air Force Base. The FBI did not respond. We also petitioned the State Police in Massachusetts regarding the flow of drugs into America through Cape Cod. The State Police did not respond.”
1996 (Age 54): Stopped filing tax returns.
2000 ( Age 58): “I received a commission from the United States Continental Congress Constitution Rangers of 1776 whose mission is ‘To protect and serve the Constitutional Republic of the several states and the People thereof under the Creator.’ The Constitution Rangers was founded in 1980 by Lawrence ‘Pappy’ Robertson, Jr., now living in Phoenix, Arizona. I became the national leader of the Constitution Rangers in 2003.”
2006 (Age 64): “Two months before my indictment and arrest, I received a copy of an FBI report on me. The report gave me a clean bill of health.”
2006-2007 (Age 64-65): “Michael Avery from Outlaw Legal Services out of Florida has served as my paralegal, helping me with the preparation of all pre-trial motions.”
Ed Brown’s Court Documents
Click here for the official Court Docket, which lists all documents filed with the Court in USA v. Brown, et al., Case No 06-00071, United States District Court, District of New Hampshire.
WTP has also prepared a spreadsheet analysis that lists (by Docket number and date) the 35 substantive legal motions filed by the Browns in the case and the single legally substantive motion filed by the Government. It shows the government’s response (if any) for each of the Brown motions, and the date and short summary (or link to) the Court’s Order, if any, regarding each motion.
Links to copies of the Motions, Responses and court Orders are provided.
The Court denied the government’s single substantive motion. It also issued Orders denying (in whole or part) 29 of the 35 substantive motions filed by the Browns. The full text of most of the Court’s Orders are included as entries within the Court Docket itself and are labeled “Endorsed Order.” Where the Court’s Order was a separate document, WTP provides a link to the Order on the spreadsheet analysis. For most of Brown's motions, the court gave little or no explanation for its rulings.
On three occasions, the DOJ invited the Browns to meet with the Grand Jury that was investigating the Browns. The Browns refused the offers on the ground that the DOJ will control the process to the point of unfairness. The Browns provided the DOJ with certain conditions that would have to be met before the Browns would agree to appear before the Grand Jury. The DOJ did not agree with those conditions. The Browns did not appear before the Grand Jury.
There were two pre-trial hearings. The transcripts are listed on the Docket (Numbers 57 and 88). The transcripts are not available through PACER. Ed Brown had copies of the transcripts at his home. Bob Schulz read the two transcripts. During each pre-trial hearing the Judge instructed the Browns that they would not be allowed to present evidence or argue the constitutionality of the income tax.
There are no jury instructions from the Court in the Docket. Nor did Bob Schulz come across a copy of any jury instructions from the Court in Ed Brown’s files. The Docket does include two proposed jury instructions from the Government. According to Ed Brown, on Thursday, January 11, just before deciding not to return to the Courthouse, he was shown a copy of the instructions the Judge intended to give to the jury. According to Ed Brown, while the jury instructions did not contain an explicit exhortation to find the Browns guilty, the instructions were clearly intended to “persuade” the jury to find the Browns guilty.
Appearing without attorneys, the Brown’s pre-trial motions were exceptionally well drafted and presented significant questions of law to the Court, questions that should have been addressed by the Court but, in most cases, were not.
Unless a motion was totally frivolous, (Note: the Court never used that word and there is no indication of frivolity in the Record) the Court in the interest of fairness and justice, should have issued Motion Decisions that stated the facts, the arguments by both sides for and against the motion, the applicable law and an explanation of how the Court applied the law to the facts. The Court failed to do this, but should have, even if the trial had to be delayed. After all, the Browns had formally waived their Right to a speedy trial.
The government failed to respond to 15 of Brown’s legally substantive motions.
The Government did file responses to 19 of Brown’s substantive motions. Under the Court’s own Rules the Browns had 10 days to file a reply to each of the Government’s responses to each of Browns’ dispositive motions, and 10 days to file for permission to file a reply to each of the Government’s responses to each of Browns’ non-dispositive motions.
However in almost every instance, the Court violated its own rules and Brown's Due Process Rights by deciding Brown's motions without giving Brown an opportunity to reply to the Government's response.
In 15 of the 19 instances where the Government did file a response to a motion by Brown, the Court issued an order deciding Browns’ motion on either the same day as the Government filed its response or on the day immediately following. Of the 15 rushed Orders pertaining to Brown’s motions, 13 were denied while only 2 were granted (and those granted merely pertained to rules of discovery).
Clearly, the Court gave the Browns’ motions short shrift.
The questions that were properly presented to the Court, and which the Court did not answer, are questions that continue to pervade the entire Patriot and Tax Honesty movements.
In the Court’s defense, the Court denied the Government’s motion in limine (Docket #99), which motion sought a court order that would have prevented the Browns from arguing and presenting any evidence in support of their “tax theories.” However, the Court’s order, in effect, directed the Government to raise any objections during the trial, at which time the Court would decide whether to allow the argument and evidence. If past experience in federal criminal tax trials is any indicator (Simkanin, Schiff, etc.), DOJ would repeatedly object and the Court would routinely sustain all the objections, essentially depriving the Browns their Right to a defense.
Click here for the Ed Brown trial BLOG website
Access all the Brown’s pre-trial motions
Main Page -
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES