BillsFanNC Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 13, 2023 Author Share Posted December 13, 2023 SCOTUS granted cert on Fischer v. US, which challenges DOJ’s use of felony charge “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding” used to convict hundreds of J6 political prisoners This statute was intended to be used against people destroying documents DOJ weaponized it to unconstitutionally lengthen sentences of J6ers who walked through the US Capitol If overturned by SCOTUS, it would be a historic humiliation for Merrick Garland, the DOJ, and Biden More importantly it would free many J6 prisoners 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 14, 2023 Author Share Posted December 14, 2023 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 17, 2023 Author Share Posted December 17, 2023 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 20, 2023 Share Posted December 20, 2023 American law and the Constitution guarantee a fair trial and a speedy trial. The j-6 Prisoners have received neither and by all rights the SCOTUS should grant them freedom. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 28, 2023 Author Share Posted December 28, 2023 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 2 Author Share Posted January 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted February 16 Author Share Posted February 16 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 On April 16th, the Supreme Court will hear a case to determine whether the Biden Justice Department misused a federal criminal obstruct-of-justice statute to arrest and imprison Trump supporters on January 6th. https://scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fischer-v-united-states/… The Supreme Court will almost certainly reverse over 300 January 6th criminal charges or convictions before the end of June. But the damage is done: The Biden Justice Department has already wrongfully charged or imprisoned these January 6th protesters under its bogus, politicized, and malicious application of this post-Enron criminal statute. They’ve lost their reputations, jobs, livelihoods, fortune, liberty, friends. families, and even lives. Jack Smith also misused this post-Enron statute for half of his bogus and political January 6th case to arrest and charge Trump for objecting to the 2020 presidential election, an objection which is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and the First Amendment. (Why didn’t Democrats—including Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton—go to prison for objecting to Republican wins in 1968, 2000, 2004, and 2016?) So half of Jack Smith’s January 6th case against Trump will almost certainly disappear before the end of June. And the week April 22nd, the Supreme Court will decide whether the President of the United States—like federal judges and Members of Congress—are immune from criminal prosecution for their official acts. https://supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022824zr3_febh.pdf… This is a very easy answer: Yes. Otherwise, the Court will allow the destruction of the presidency—and the country. Should Obama face execution for capital murder for ordering the drone strike on 2 Americans—including a minor? Should David Barron, Obama’s legal advisor and now a federal appellate judge, join Obama’s fate? Should Biden face criminal charges for his illegal release of violent criminal migrants into America—and their natural and probable rapes, murders, and other violent crimes? Should the Biden Justice Department prosecutors, along with partisan Democrat and cowardly Republican judges, go to prison for falsely charging and imprisoning January 6th protesters under a malicious reading of the post-Enron obstruct-of-justice criminal statute? Bottom Line: This is republic-ending lawfare. Let’s hope the Supreme Court has the wisdom and courage to stop it. Before it’s too late. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 "Party of Law and Order" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 On the narrow issue before the Supreme Court: I do believe the criminal defendants will win before this Supreme Court. That doesn't mean the prosecutions were improper, since the statute has been used in this way many times before without any appeals court ruling to the contrary. That says more about the composition of the current Supreme Court than it does about anything else. And for that, all the January 6 invaders should be thanking Mitch McConnell. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Of course they turn to attack the supreme Court vs the highly biased DC lower court. Co equal branches of government is the enemy of full power. So they attack it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 "The Supreme Court will hear arguments [today] in a case that could eliminate some of the federal charges against former President Donald J. Trump..." "... in the case accusing him of plotting to subvert the 2020 election and could disrupt the prosecutions of hundreds of rioters involved in the Capitol attack. The question the justices will consider is whether a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in the wake of the collapse of the energy giant Enron, covers the conduct of a former police officer, Joseph W. Fischer, who participated in the Capitol assault, on Jan. 6, 2021. The law figures in two of the federal charges against Mr. Trump in his election subversion case, and more than 350 people who stormed the Capitol have been prosecuted under it.... The law, signed in 2002, was prompted by accounting fraud and the destruction of documents, but the provision is written in broad terms. Still, in an earlier case involving a different provision of the law, the Supreme Court said it should be tethered to its original purpose...." Writes Adam Liptak, in the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/16/us/supreme-court-jan-6#supreme-court-jan-6-trump 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 ⬆️ Commie paralegal hand waving drivel. No thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) ⬆️ Front seat on the Short Bus. Sometimes the driver lets him work the turn signal for him. EDIT: Supreme Court oral arguments on this still going on right now. Damn, Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General, is good. This law geek is in love. And then I find out this: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202790713323/ Yes, she's the former Miss Idaho. How bout them potatoes. Put her on the Supreme Court now! Get some foundation to take Sotomayor to that West Texas rancho. https://people.com/sports/antonin-scalia-died-during-getaway-with-members-of-secret-hunting-society/#:~:text=When Supreme Court Justice Antonin,origins date back to 1695. Edited April 16 by The Frankish Reich 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 Government is using an obscure financial crimes statute about delaying Congressional proceeding to destroy the lives of J6 protesters. Gorsuch just asked whether pulling a fire alarm before a Congressional vote could qualify (e..g, what Democrat Jamaal Bowman did recently) and government atty says no. LOL 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 8 minutes ago, B-Man said: Government is using an obscure financial crimes statute about delaying Congressional proceeding to destroy the lives of J6 protesters. Gorsuch just asked whether pulling a fire alarm before a Congressional vote could qualify (e..g, what Democrat Jamaal Bowman did recently) and government atty says no. LOL The US attorney is wrong. Because the correct answer to the questions isn't "No". Because everyone knows the correct answer is .. "It depends on who pulls the alarm". 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) 8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: But her weak legal arguments don’t matter. She is cute 😆 . Edited April 16 by B-Man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: But her weak legal arguments don’t matter. She is cute 😆 . Cute AND really good at her job. I've never argued a Supreme Court case (that's admittedly out of my league), but I have argued to appeals courts panels of three judges. It's tough. They come at you from different angles. They all have their pet views. You have to be ready for everything, preferably ready with a cite to the huge trial record or to the law cited in the briefs. And I gotta say: she's one of the best I've heard. And probably even more, umm, captivating in person. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 As I noted yesterday, Elizabeth Prelogar totally misrepresented (lied?) how DOJ routinely handles sentencing requests for those convicted of 1512c2. Under questioning from Kavanaugh about prison sentences, Prelogar tried to make it sound like 1512c2 defendants with other nonviolent offenses (common misdemeanors) only get about 24 months in jail. She quickly mentioned the "Brock" case--referring to Larry Brock, a man from Texas convicted at bench trial of 1512c2 and 5 misdemeanors--and the "enhancement" recently overturned by DC appellate court in 1512c2 convictions. So what did DOJ ask for in Brock case? Not 24-26 months as Prelogar attempted to mislead Kavanaugh into believing. NO--DOJ asked for 60 months in prison. This is far more representative of what DOJ has requested in similar cases. And yes it included the now unlawful enhancement but that was the enhancement DOJ ASKED FOR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 12 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: As I noted yesterday, Elizabeth Prelogar totally misrepresented (lied?) how DOJ routinely handles sentencing requests for those convicted of 1512c2. Under questioning from Kavanaugh about prison sentences, Prelogar tried to make it sound like 1512c2 defendants with other nonviolent offenses (common misdemeanors) only get about 24 months in jail. She quickly mentioned the "Brock" case--referring to Larry Brock, a man from Texas convicted at bench trial of 1512c2 and 5 misdemeanors--and the "enhancement" recently overturned by DC appellate court in 1512c2 convictions. So what did DOJ ask for in Brock case? Not 24-26 months as Prelogar attempted to mislead Kavanaugh into believing. NO--DOJ asked for 60 months in prison. This is far more representative of what DOJ has requested in similar cases. And yes it included the now unlawful enhancement but that was the enhancement DOJ ASKED FOR. I expect SCOTUS will rule the statute as used by DOJ in charging J6 defendants is inapplicable. Also, the mere presence of J6 protesters is not de facto evidence that they acted with intent, in attempting or succeeding in "obstructing an official proceeding”. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 Another Elizabeth Prelogar fact check. Here is DOJ sentencing memo filed last week for 4 defendants who traveled together to DC for Jan 6. All were convicted by DC jury on 1512c2-related charges and other nonviolent offenses. No weapons, vandalism, or assault convictions. Two men didn't even go inside the building. Just about 3x+ what Prelogar claimed: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 SCOTUS Arguments Don’t Bode Well For DOJ Prosecutors Pushing J6 Obstruction Charges LESLIE MCADOO GORDON The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday morning in the case of Fischer v. United States, one of the many criminal cases arising out of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Like defendants in a large subset of those cases, Joseph Fischer was charged, among other offenses, with obstruction of an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). Fischer’s case in the Supreme Court challenges whether the events of that day can be prosecuted using this obstruction statute. Most of the justices seemed dubious, or at a minimum concerned, about the Department of Justice’s very broad interpretation of the statute allowing it to sweep in the kinds of conduct that Jan. 6 encompassed. If the court rules for Fischer, his case will automatically apply to all Jan. 6 cases that include a Section 1512 charge and radically change those cases, including the prosecution against former President Donald Trump in D.C. In virtually all instances, such a ruling would likely require that the Section 1512 charges be dismissed outright. [snip] The precise scope that the court gives to 1512(c)(2), however, could potentially leave open the possibility that a few defendants, including former President Trump, could still be charged under it using a narrower set of allegations. Such a case would then likely bring to the forefront some of the statute’s other issues, which were only touched upon briefly in Tuesday’s argument, such as the meaning of the “official proceeding” requirement. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the justices should render their decision and opinion in the case by the end of the current court term, which traditionally closes June 30 of each calendar year. (Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ... https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/17/scotus-arguments-dont-bode-well-for-doj-prosecutors-charging-j6rs-under-federal-obstruction-statute/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Aspergers is not an actual medical classification any more. they are all lumped into Autism. Autism is an issue with communications. Aspergers was the designation for very high IQ people with autism (issues with communicating) Much of the very smart folks throughout history and today show quirky and extroverted tendencies that kind of point to them having undiagnosed Aspergers. but even with your huge divergence in facts while trying to demonize the victims. you are openly stating the justice system prosecuted disabled people with mental health issues without any additional resources or falling with guidelines for people with disabilities in court? your saying they had autism and what not, where were the visual text for the communications. that alone would be grounds to be tossed at the federal level. "WHO CAN REQUEST AN ADA ACCOMMODATION? Any individual with an interest in participating in or attending any proceeding before any court of this state may make a request for ADA accommodations. This includes jurors, parties, attorneys, witnesses, and spectators." you should really stick to script. when you go off topic you tend make contradictory and homophobic statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts