CONCORD, New Hampshire (PNN) - February 20, 2009 - Unbowed after 16 months in prison, freedom fighters Edward and Elaine Brown returned to federal court yesterday to face a new series of bogus charges stemming from their 10-month armed standoff with federal agents.

An 11-count indictment accuses the couple of obstruction of justice, carrying and possessing a firearm in connection with a violent crime, and conspiring to prevent federal agents from arresting them, in part by arming themselves with firearms, ammunition, explosives and pipe bombs and recruiting armed, like-minded supporters to their cause.

Edward Brown, 66, and his wife, Elaine, 68, remained defiant and, at times, disdainful of the proceedings, saying they do not recognize the court and refused to be represented by counsel.

"It's a different law my wife and I live under. We live under a higher law," Edward Brown told Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead at his arraignment in U.S. District Court.

Muirhead unlawfully entered not guilty pleas on their behalf and set April 13 for trial before Judge George Z. Singal.  The court has never established jurisdiction over the couple; it has unlawfully assumed jurisdiction, which is standard for the United States criminal judiciary.

Other bogus charges against the Browns include felon in possession of a firearm, conspiring to commit an offense against the United States, and failure to appear for sentencing on tax charges in April 2007. Edward Brown faces an additional bogus charge of failure to appear at the couple's January 2007 trial.

The Browns were convicted in a sham trial of federal tax crimes, including plotting to hide their income and avoid paying taxes on the 1.9 million USD that Elaine Brown, a former dentist, earned between 1996 and 2003. The couple has claimed there is no law that requires them to pay federal income taxes.  To date, no IRS or government employee has ever come forward with a copy of any law requiring the Browns to pay federal income taxes.

After their separate arraignments yesterday, the American Gestapo “allowed” the Browns a brief visit with each other inside a cellblock at the U.S. Marshal's office, according to U.S. Marshal Stephen R. Monier.

The couple had not seen each other since their October 4, 2007 arrests by undercover deputy marshals that illegally invaded the Browns’ home.

The arrests peacefully ended what the Browns publicly promised would be an armed confrontation with law enforcers who tried to send them to federal prison.  The only reason the Browns did not kill the American Gestapo members was due to the lies and deceit perpetrated on the Browns by U.S. government criminals.

The bogus indictment also alleges Edward Brown pointed an assault rifle at an undercover deputy marshal the day of the arrests while Elaine Brown held an assault rifle in the presence of an undercover agent. (Too bad they didn’t shoot them).

Brown spent much of the 20-minute hearing in New Hampshire disputing the legitimacy of the legal process, which he said forced him to walk out of his 2007 trial.

"That's why this was a scam, sham, kangaroo court and should have been a mistrial from day one," said Brown.

Elaine Brown - wearing light green prison garb and her brown hair now grey - told the judge she would not participate in any hearing, trial or submit any paperwork in her defense.

"She claims she is not being properly brought before this court," federal public defender Bjorn R. Lang of Concord said after the hearing.

Muirhead urged Brown to allow him to appoint her an attorney, noting she faces a minimum mandatory 30-year prison sentence and up to life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge alone. She refused.

The judge appointed Lang to serve as Brown's "stand-by counsel" and Manchester attorney Michael J. Iacopino to represent her husband in the same capacity. The Browns will remain in the U.S. Marshal's custody at an area facility pending trial.