Father Testifies He Held Ginger Brown Against Will in Deprogramming Effort

In courtroom testimony that prosecutor Gary Rempel said sealed his case, Earle Brown admitted Thursday that he used force to abduct his daughter and held her against her will for five days in an unsuccessful deprogramming attempt.

“He admitted to all the elements of the felonies,” Rempel said after cross-examining Brown about the May, 1988, abduction of Ginger Brown, who was 22 years old at the time and an avid member of the tight-knit, 17-member group known as Great Among the Nations.

“There is not a single element of the crimes of kidnaping or false imprisonment that he has not specifically admitted to the jury,” Rempel said.

Rempel said his task now is to persuade the jurors to set aside any sympathy they may have for Ginger Brown’s parents and sister, and to apply the laws on kidnaping and false imprisonment in passing their verdict.

“I’m still sympathetic to him, but with evidence like this, the proper place for sympathy is with the person sentencing him, not the persons deciding whether he broke the law,” Rempel said of the father.

The five defendants are Earle Brown and his wife, Dorothy, both 58, of Santa Cruz; one of their four daughters, Holly, 25; Hank Erler, 23, in whose mother’s Escondido home the deprogramming effort occurred, and Cliff Daniels, 34, who Earle Brown said was hired for the deprogramming effort.

Earle Brown had testified that he wanted his youngest daughter snatched from the group, based in Carlsbad at the time, so he and others could convince her that she had lost her free will as a member of the group, which purports to be a fundamental Christian Bible study and evangelism ministry.

On Thursday, Brown acknowledged he didn’t notify either police or the FBI that he and others had taken Ginger, nor did he have medical personnel standing by to treat her if necessary after she was taken.

“Did you have any document from any court in this nation giving you authority to take Ginger Brown?” Rempel asked Brown.

“No,” Brown replied.

Rempel: “Was it the plan to move Ginger Brown by van to the home in Escondido, by physical force?”

Brown: “Yes.”

Rempel: “Did she ever express consent to being removed by physical force?”

Brown: “No.”

Rempel: “Was Ginger Brown detained at that residence in Escondido from May 12, several days until May 16?”

Brown: “Yes.”

Rempel: “Was that detention part of the plan?”

Brown: “Yes.”

Rempel: “Did you hire Cliff Daniels?”

Brown: “Yes.”

Rempel: “Wasn’t it clear, Mr. Brown, that she didn’t want to go with you?”

Brown: “She kept saying, ‘Let me go, let me go.’ ”

Rempel: “Was she restrained from leaving the house?”

Brown: “Yes.”

Rempel: “Was she permitted to use the telephone while in the house?”

Brown: “No.”.

At one point, Rempel chided Brown for not having seat-belted his daughter in the getaway van. “Did you feel it would be safer on the mattress in the back of the van rather in the seat, where she could buckle herself?” Rempel asked.

At that, Superior Court Judge David B. Moon scolded Rempel: “The issue of safety on the road is not an issue here.”

During the cross-examination, Brown repeatedly denied having struck his daughter or having seen others hit her.

“She was banging her arms on the walls as hard as she could--Wham! Wham! Wham!” Brown said. “And I was curious--Why? Why? Why?”

Brown’s defense attorney, Saul Wright, said he didn’t consider his client’s testimony damaging to the case and said Rempel was “boring the jury” with his questioning.

“My client is telling the truth, and the truth is that he did what he did to rescue his daughter,” Wright said. “I don’t think he’s technically admitting an offense, because he didn’t commit a crime. There’s nothing to admit to.”

The trial, which was originally expected to have gone to the jury for deliberations by Thanksgiving, will resume Jan. 2.