If I know about drug dealing in the ghetto, the police have to know. One has to wonder why very little is ever done about it. - Elaine Brown

Earlier in the day, there was an outburst in the courtroom.

Gonzalez’s outburst

Lawyers for Gonzalez and the government met in a room adjoining the courtroom for more than half an hour following the reading of the verdicts. After their conference, they met with Singal in his chambers. The judge later instructed the jury to keep deliberating.

Just before the jury left the room, Gonzalez yelled a message to them.

“Jury nullification is your right,” he said. A second statement was difficult to hear.

Singal called the parties back into his chambers after the outburst.

There was another outburst when a supporter, Joe Haas, yelled "point of order", and the judge had him removed from the courtroom.  According to the Concord Monitor, Chief Deputy Marshal Gary Dimartino said later that Haas was merely escorted from the building, and he was not arrested.

The jury later returned with guilty verdicts against Cirino "Reno" Gonzalez on the aiding and abetting and conspiracy charges, but they were unable to reach a verdict on the other charges.

It is unknown whether the government will retry Reno Gonzalez on the charges not resolved.

Here are some excerpts:

When Reno first heard about the Ed Brown standoff, he says he didn’t know it was about tax issues.  All he knew is that Ed had holed himself up his home.  Reno had been “researching” the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco at the time.

Reno:  I didn’t think [the standoff] would last too long.  They would just go in and kill them.

Reno (later): The US Marshals don’t ask questions … I thought this would be another Ruby Ridge.

According to Reno, all three defendants were there to take advantage of Ed’s press.  Jason went to the Browns “because there was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon” and “he was there to defend the Browns … the only thing else he did was drink beer.”  Riley was there “because he took a military oath” to defend the Constitution and his research had told him that the income tax laws were unlawful.

Prosecutor:  Don’t you care about Ed and Elaine Brown?

Reno:  Ed Brown is kind of a jerk… I’m a realist, not a hero.

Prosecutor:  Did you tell Jason to arm himself?

Reno:  No, I wouldn’t tell a pacifist to buy a gun.

Prosecutor:  Jason Gerhard is a pacifist?

Reno: Jason Gerhard is a good man.

When Ed brought him a sample zip gun and asked if he could make more, Reno said that he was “for firearms, but against mines.  The spring gun had the capability of being used as a mine.”

The most amusing part of today's blog:

He [the prosecutor] described Jason as someone who was spoiling for a fight and who was very … interested … in his gun.

From an email Jason sent:

I choose to enjoy porn while fondling my gun at Ed Brown’s house.  Try it one day.  It’s the best of all possible worlds.

Is "my gun" what he calls Little Jason, or is he literally fondling a gun while watching porn?  Forget I asked that, I really don't want to know.  LOL

Jason Gerhard and Danny Riley are not going to testify in their own defense.  Except for the jury's instructions and deliberations, which will start Monday morning, the trial is over.

What I find sad is that the Brown supporters, and even Ed and Elaine themselves, have abandoned these men when they most need the support.  Their defense witnesses either took the Fifth or else failed to materialize.  Even Elaine took the Fifth, rather than testify on behalf of the men who gave up their own lives to protect hers.  None of the Brown supporters even attended the trial as a spectator, according to JJ; the only spectators were Jason's mother and (usually) Danny's brother.

I can't help but wonder .... had these three men realized that Ed and Elaine would leave them hanging like this,  would they have still made the decision to become involved?

What follows is the conversation in question. Jim Hobbs is "Old Buck", who stayed at the Brown home in his RV for months. Bob "woffle" (Wolffe) is one of the men currently on trial. "Admin" is JJ.

ADMIN: You ever hear Ed’s plan to kill Elaine and blame the evil feds, Old Buck?

BUCK: Not quite like that but yes I feared he may do such a thing as kill elaine and I told the marshals that the night I left.

BUCK: I also told Bob woffle in an email I had that concern.

ADMIN: Can you describe what you heard of Ed’s plan in an email, if you don’t mind. I have four different versions now and there are odd discrepancies with what we’re seeing in trial (the bunker set up, for example.)

BUCK: No I will not as there is nothing to that whole story as it was all smoke and mirrors. while I did not agree with alot of what ed said and did, I believe the tax laws are being misapplied and ed and elaine were railroad. These men are being charged because the marshals were made to look like fool for 9mts. Its shameful how our stystem works.

ADMIN: If there’s nothing to the story, why did you call the Marshals and warn Wolffe?

BUCK: I called and left a message with the marshals telling them of my concern also warned woffle about ed and my concerns for elaines saftey. ed and I had been going round and round for a few days and I was very concerned . The bunker and tunnels wer the made up part. the hit list is ed bullshit.

BUCK: I came to believe ed got himself in so deep the only out he saw was sucide by cop. I sincerly believed that and Bob wolfe agreed 100%. The problem was what the hell could I do about it. so I got out.

So, according to someone who was undeniably very close to Ed Brown and Elaine Brown, and actually lived on the Browns' property for a prolonged period of time during the standoff, Ed was possibly planning to murder Elaine; and this supporter was concerned enough for Elaine's life at Ed's hands that he actually broke away, and alerted the US Marshals that she was in danger.

WOW.

I wonder if Elaine, or her children, realized that she was in far more danger from Ed, than from the government?

Would Ed have murdered Elaine? I have to take Buck's words and actions for that, and say yes. I honestly do not believe that this man, who stood by Ed and Elaine's side for so long, staying on the property to protect them, would ever have gone out of his way to call the Marshals and give them that information, unless he absolutely believed that Elaine was in serious danger of being murdered by Ed. It's a good thing the Marshals came in when they did. They may actually have saved Elaine's life. Old Buck may have saved Elaine's life, by alerting the Marshals.

In another update, Ed and Elaine have taken the Fifth Amendment, refusing to testify on behalf of the men who are on trial for trying to protect them. They've hung these men out to dry.

While this may come as a surprise to some, it's not a surprise to me. As previously stated on LFV, I have never trusted Ed Brown. Too bad his supporters didn't listen to me. If they had, they'd be at home with their families right now, instead of on trial and looking at spending decades in prison.

The moral of the story: It does no good to protect someone based upon principle, when you are protecting someone who is completely unprincipled.

For those unfamiliar with the case, on trial are Cirino "Reno" Gonzalez, Daniel Riley, and Jason Gerhard; each of the men potentially faces decades in prison if convicted. The men are accused of providing material support to Ed and Elaine Brown, providing them with, among other things, weapons and explosives. The Browns had been convicted of multiple counts including tax evasion and structuring transactions, and were fugitives when the alleged crimes occurred.

Here's an excerpt from the latest entry, wherein former co-defendant Robert Wolffe rats them all out pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement:

Witness Robert Wolffe

Bob Wolffe was the fourth defendant in this case. He signed a proffer letter just a few days after the September 12, 2007 indictment and arrest, and signed a plea agreement in January, 2008. Wolffe was wearing an orange prison t-shirt, jacket, and pants, but otherwise looked tidy, composed, and very serious about his situation and testimony.

Wolffe lives in Randolph, VT and first heard of Ed Brown when the Browns were on trial in January 2007 for tax evasion and structuring financial transactions. Over the next eight months, he visited the Brown house roughly 25 to 30 times. He said that he understood that they had been convicted on multiple felony counts and that they were evading arrest.

Wolffe conducted counter-surveillance by following US Marshals when they were following Jim Hobbs (the man who posts comments on this blog), and provided armed security for the Browns by wearing weapons at their home. He also did some target shooting on Ed Brown’s range next to the home. He identified a number of weapons he’d seen others carrying at the home.

Wolffe has been charged with three felony counts in this case, and no counts were dropped as part of his plea agreement. He not only wasn’t promised any leniency by the prosecutors, but he was warned repeatedly that if he lied on the stand, he would be prosecuted for perjury.

Wolffe testified on a number of important issues:

1) He saw Reno and Ed carrying rifles while patrolling the property

2) On another occasion, he saw Ed, Jason, and Danny with rifles again patrolling the property

3) He saw Reno wearing a semi-automatic pistol in a holster and said that Reno told him that he was a security specialist in the military who was there to provide the Browns with security

4) Reno had brought a .50 caliber rifles to the Browns’ home

5) He first met Danny in late April, and Danny was involved in internet dealing with Shaun Kranish of www.makethestand.com

6) He saw Danny and Ed trying to detonate Tannerite using different caliber ammunition and later Ed showed Wolffe the Tannerite baggies in the trees

7) He saw the zip guns in Ed’s garage and Ed and Danny told him about their plan to place blanks in them and set them up as booby traps around the property to act as an early warning system

8 ) Wolffe met Jason in mid-June and said that Jason took care of things around the Brown house

9) Jason had been purchasing weapons for Ed Brown, but the local dealer had decided not to sell him any more

10) Jason told Wolffe that he was joining the military to learn more about military tactics and explosives

11) Wolffe is still a tax denier, but said that Ed and Elaine were convicted felons, so protecting them was a crime

12) Wolffe lied to Keith Champagne in various letters by not telling him about his proffer in September 2007

13) Wolffe was not a Constitution Ranger until the Brown standoff and didn’t know the Browns

14) One of the main reasons Wolffe pled guilty was to protect his wife from weapons charges

15) Wolffe acted as a mail center for various Brown supplies

16) Wolffe provided roughly 6 to 8 pieces of pipe that were later turned into zip guns

17) Wolffe had been in Ed Brown’s bedroom but not his closet (sometimes you have to wonder about the defense attorneys’ questions…)

18) He saw Lauren Canario at the home three or four times, but was unfamiliar with several other names

19) He said that Jim Hobbs lived at the Brown house for several weeks after Reno left

20) Wolffe said that Ed Brown had a “secret hit list” but Wolffe thought that that was between Ed and his God

21) Wolffe said that Ed had asked him to purchase a gun for Elaine, but that he’d refused. “I didn’t want to get involved in the standoff in that way.”

Wolffe didn’t spend that long on the stand but his information was quite forthright and direct. Unlike the other defendants in this case, it would appear that he has a much better grasp of the reality of the situation.

There is much, much more there, so if you are interested in this trial or the subject matter in general, you might want to check out the blog, which is updated daily.

Hat tip to my friend wserra on Quatloos

United States
Libertarian protests
Live free or get hauled off to prison
Oct 11th 2007 | AUSTIN
From The Economist print edition

Taxing questions

THE American constitution gives Congress the power to collect taxes. The 16th amendment to it elaborates that Congress may tax incomes. That is enough to make most Americans pony up. But Ed and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire are unconvinced. In 1996 they decided to stop paying federal income taxes because, they said, they saw no law authorising such an imposition. And in January of this year, when they were convicted on charges of tax evasion, they resisted.

Mr Brown retreated to his home and vowed to fight anyone who tried to arrest him. Mrs Brown, a dentist in quieter times, joined him a bit later. Their home made a good fort. It sprawls over more than 100 acres (40 hectares) of forest and was equipped with generators, weapons and booby traps. Thus holed up, the couple gave interviews. News of their stand spread over the internet. Supporters brought food and supplies. The situation was at an impasse until federal marshals had a clever idea. On October 4th, they tricked the Browns by posing as supporters. The Browns welcomed them onto the property and were arrested on the front porch.

The Browns, it has to be admitted, are at the far end of the spectrum. But thousands of reasonable Americans are deeply committed to a candidate whose platform might appeal to such scofflaws. Abolishing the federal income tax is a priority for supporters of Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas who is running for the Republican presidential nomination on a libertarian platform. Mr Paul reckons it would be possible to accomplish this; fiscal rigour is central to his campaign. He also wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve and return to gold-backed currency. He has always opposed the war in Iraq. He wants America out of the UN, the WTO, and any other international arrangement. He strongly supports home-schooling and, of course, gun ownership.

These stances are agreeable to people who distrust government, and political watchers have been surprised by Mr Paul's success thus far. According to an October 4th Gallup poll, he is still wallowing with around 2% of the Republican vote. However, in the third quarter of this year he raised more than $5m—quite respectable compared, say, with the $9m raised by Fred Thompson.

It is probably the intensity of Mr Paul's convictions that commends him to his supporters. Republican voters are still not sure whether to believe the conservative credentials of leading candidates like Mitt Romney or Mr Thompson. Mr Paul plainly believes what he says. Perhaps the other candidates should adopt a bit of his libertarian fervour.

I, for one, love that Congressman Paul is getting so much exposure. I've been trying to do my part and have introduced quite a few people to his ideas. Here is a pic of the rEVOLution shirt on safari. The blurry people are the sweetest couple but I don't want it implied that they support Dr. No.

My friend, Michael Hampton, and I used to contribute together at Hammer Of Truth and since it is (perhaps permanently) down for upgrades, I go often to check out his thoughts at Homeland Stupidity. Michael is a NH resident, member of the Free State Project and has also been a very vocal supporter of the Browns and has documented that support on his website. When Michael started writing about the harassment received from the DOJ, he was called many ugly names and everything from his sanity to his intelligence was questioned. What he recently wrote about almost knocked the breath out of me. Armed federal agents paid a visit to Michael's home on Friday.

Satire became reality Friday afternoon when half a dozen armed federal agents wearing body armor showed up at this author’s home and detained everyone in the house for nearly 90 minutes to determine who might pose a threat to the government.

Marshal John Bolen of the U.S. Marshals Office of Protective Intelligence traveled to Manchester, N.H., to investigate threats of violence allegedly made against Steven McAuliffe, a federal judge in the district court in Concord, and other federal officials in the area. He brought along with him other marshals and agents who would only say that they were with the Treasury Department.

Later in the afternoon the federal agents detained and interrogated another Manchester resident for nearly 30 minutes trying to locate yet another person of interest to them, and then after having set up a Saturday meeting with this person of interest, didn’t even bother to show up.

The threats allegedly originated with convicted tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, late of Plainfield, and supporters of their cause. Marshals took the Browns into custody Thursday night to begin serving 63-month prison terms after a nine-month standoff in which the couple remained in their home, supporters brought food, supplies and firearms, and staged concerts and press conferences on the property.

No matter what you think about the Browns, this should chill you to the bone. That the government monitors and then detains a person for expressing himself on a public blog should show you that we are not talking about tin foil stuff here. I'm glad that everybody at Michael's home is safe, but he should not have been visited to start with. An old saying is brought to mind right now and I think that people should pay attention.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Another thing worthy of a quick mention. Where is Ed Brown? I know that he is supposed to be in federal custody; that's what they told us anyway. A Digg reader has pointed this out though:

Elaine Brown, prisoner #03924-049 is in Federal Bureau of Prisons Custody at Danbury FCI

Ed Brown, prisoner #03923-049 is NOT IN FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS CUSTODY

So where is Ed? How can he not be in federal custody? If not theirs, then whose? Military maybe? I've heard quotes from officials that they were not in state or local custody at any time nor would they be.

Scary stuff indeed.

So, this post is dedicated to the U.S. Government. I still support Ed and Elaine Brown. In fact, my support is strengthened by your actions at Michael's house. I do feel that I must stress here that I'm non-violent. I certainly don't wish to entertain your thugs and I'm a shitty hostess. I'm also posting a couple of tax videos from Tommy Cryer. It is, after all, my duty to try to release your grip on the neck of America.

Update: Just wanted to say good morning to the DOJ.

Digg This HERE.

"We had no indication that the Browns intended to voluntarily surrender, so we had to move forward with an operation that promised the safest possible outcome" but did not provide details. The two did not surrender, he said.

  The Brown's had a falling out recently with some of the supporters who were gathering at their house, and more recently, on September 12th police arrested four of their supporters in four states when they returned home. So it would appear that there may not have been many people in the house other than the Brown's. There has been no word on if there were others in the house, or if there were other arrests made last night.

  There is a news conference scheduled this morning. I hope to write one more post about this when more details are released about the capture.

  You can read part one of this story here, there are links to the other 13 parts there also.

Among those arrested include an LFV MySpace "friend", Cirino "Reno" Gonzalez (pictured at left), as well as Jason Gerhard (arrested while at boot camp, and at whose home authorities found a pipe bomb), Daniel Riley (the man who was walking the Browns' dog and was confronted by the feds a few months back), and Bob Wolffe (the supporter who left the scene of an accident while driving the Browns' vehicle).

According to the Concord Monitor, a local Plainfield, NH newspaper, Reno is the most well-known of the four men among Brown supporters:

Gonzalez, a former military contractor, was the public face of the Browns' home for several months this summer when he lived at the house and posted frequent updates on their status online. Gonzalez appeared in online photos and videos, many of which showed him armed. He also posted long, rambling accounts of goings-on at the house and his evolving political views.

He was charged with conspiracy, accessory after the fact, and one count of carrying and possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence.

The indictment alleges that he purchased the .50-caliber rifle in April. In a blog post a few days later, Gonzalez bragged about owning the gun.

"I get sad knowing not everyone has one," he wrote on his MySpace page. "Then I think about everyone . . . that is not even close to being ready."

Gonzalez's hearing was brief. He pleaded not guilty and will remain in federal custody. A judge in Texas already ruled that Gonzalez should remain held until trial. According to Magistrate B. Janice Ellington's ruling, Gonzalez is "both a flight risk and a danger to the community."

"The defendant resisted attempts by the Marshal to arrest him at a residence where numerous firearms, including assault weapons, were present," the ruling said. "During the arrest, defendant attempted to gain access to those weapons."

Gonzalez's father, Jose Gonzalez, said in an interview that it was not surprising that his son appeared to resist arrest, because he was sleeping and startled when marshals arrived about noon last Wednesday.

According to the Alice Echo-News Journal and a blog post made by Gonzalez's friend Donna Van Meter, Gonzalez's custody hearing in Texas included rumors of a possible escape plot and an outburst by Jose Gonzalez, who was escorted from the courtroom.

Reno's trial is scheduled for November.

I had an online conversation with Reno not long ago, and he had agreed to an interview exclusive to LFV. Unfortunately, due to other more pressing personal concerns, as well as waiting to see how his planned trip to Iraq with Cindy Sheehan would proceed, I never got around to doing that interview before he was arrested. However, he seemed to have moved away from supporting the Browns, and toward engaging in anti-war activities, which of course was my point of interest.

Most interesting in the affidavits released by the feds in these cases is that Danny Riley, hailed as a hero by Brown supporters for refusing to tell the feds anything about activities at the Browns' home, seems to have been doing the exact opposite of what he led others to believe. In fact, it appears he told the feds quite a few things about what was going on at the Brown house, including the location of weapons, and may have been the federal informant referenced after these arrests (Riley was arrested as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's not an informant). Brown supporters, not surprisingly, are more than a little upset about this allegation, but still unsure whether to believe the feds at all. Here is an excerpt of a blog written by Reno's friend Donna Van Meter, with regard to the allegations about Danny Riley:

i ask myself how can they do this, it is all false charge, and why did Danny tell the Marshals where the supplies on the Browns property is located? what also gets me is that in court the marshal said that there was an informant on the property that was working for them.

HOW DARE YOU STAB PEOPLE IN THE BACK whomever you are......

danny i really hope it wasnt you but they are pointing fingers at you. i really hope it wasnt you. but if the Marshal says it i know it isnt automatically true, the whole testamony was false where it concerned Reno, lets hope they are wrong about you too, cause in the beginning i got that feeling you were a traitor to ed and elaine, but i thought damn maybe i was being too judgemental, dont like second guessing my gut feelings, and i have had too, in pertaining to your honesty danny.

i feel numb and sick.

The affidavits and indictments supporting the arrests can be seen as follows:

Bob Wolffe:
Investigator's Affidavit
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wolffe1a.pdf
Indictment
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/wolffe3.pdf

Reno Gonzalez:
Investigator's Affidavit
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gonzalez1a.pdf
Indictment
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gonzalez3.pdf

Danny Riley:
Investigator's Affidavit
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley1a.pdf
Indictment
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley4.pdf

Jason Gerhard:
Indictment
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gerhard1.pdf

Brunswick, Georgia,
December 28, 2007

OPEN STATEMENT TO THE GREEN PARTY

As of today, I am no longer a candidate for the Green Party nomination for president of the United States, and I hereby resign from all affiliation with the Green Party. I believe the leadership of the Green Party of the United States has been seized by neo-liberal men who entrench the Party in internecine antagonisms so as to compromise its stated principles and frustrate its electoral and other goals. They have made it impossible to advance any truly progressive ideals or objectives under the umbrella of the Green Party, and, thus, rendered it counterproductive for me to go forward as a Green Party candidate or member.

I believe this small clique that has captured control of the Party has transformed it into a repository for erstwhile, disgruntled Democrats, who would violate the Party’s own vision and sabotage the good will and genuine commitment of the general membership. Indeed, these usurpers foster a reactionary agenda, supporting partisans in and backers of the Bush wars and disavowing the Party’s more progressive tenets in favor of promoting high-profile participation in the politics of the establishment.

This became clear to me almost from the moment I announced my candidacy in February of 2007. I intended using my campaign to bring large numbers of blacks and browns into the Party, particularly from the hood and the barrio—as would come to be reflected in the lists of supporters and delegates I’ve submitted in connection with my candidacy. As I asserted I would use the respect I enjoyed as a former leader of the Black Panther Party to do so, some in the hierarchy seemed utterly fearful of the prospect of a massive influx of blacks and browns into the Green Party. Soon, there was wide circulation of false rumors that I was a one-time “government agent,” which was intended to discredit my history in the Black Panther Party so as to undermine my potential influence.—And, since then, I have had to devote significant time and energy to addressing these lies.—What this effort revealed, though, was how the Green Party, while advocating “diversity,” remains dominated by whites. Indeed, the Party is able to count less blacks, browns and natives in its membership than our national population percentages and certainly less than the Democrats themselves.

In effect, the present Green Party leadership promotes a kinder, gentler capitalism, a moderated racism, an environmentally-sustainable globalism, which I cannot support. They are dedicated to the underside of the Party’s platform, which falls short of repudiating the capitalist state, source of all the social ills the Party would address. They equivocate by promoting “an economic alternative to corporate capitalism and a socialist state,” advocate a “re-formulation” of the IMF,NAFTA, so forth, and advance the institution of “stakeholder capitalism.”

On the other hand, they demonstrate a willingness to override the best of the Party’s platform. My sharp criticism of high-profile Party members’ support for the “three-strikes” crime laws, the sole basis for the inhumane mass incarceration of people in the United States, particularly blacks—the repeal of which the Party’s platform advocates—has been met with outright enmity. And, to divert attention from this and other critical issues, the leadership has employed chicanery in their promulgation of defamatory lies about me—which they finally extended to character assaults on my supporters and critics of their unscrupulousness.

It is my sincere belief that the Green Party as it now exists has no intention of using the ballot to actualize real social progress, and will aggressively repel attempts to do so. To remain in the fray or in the Party, then, would require a betrayal of my lifelong and ongoing commitment to serving the interests of black and other oppressed people by advancing revolutionary change in America.

Kai's take on Elaine Brown's announcement.

Nevertheless, Elaine Brown's statement above suggests to me that the central party apparatus is rotten. If they're doing what Brown says they're doing (and I tend to believe her), then it's probably time to oust the current crop of party leaders and replace them with serious progressive visionaries who aren't afraid of scaring off timid white liberals with words like "Black Panther" and "revolutionary".