Posted on 10/04/2023 8:58:29 AM PDT by JonathonMoseley
The evidence-tampering statute being used by the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants is unconstitutionally broad, interferes with First Amendment free speech, and has left prosecutors with “unbridled, standardless discretion to effectively make up their own law,” a new Supreme Court filing argues.
The High Court is considering whether to take up a challenge to the use of the law (pdf) brought by Jan. 6 defendant Edward Jacob Lang, 28, of New York. Mr. Lang, at least 317 other defendants, and former President Donald Trump have been charged with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding: the tallying of Electoral College votes from the 2020 presidential election by a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. The charge is a felony with a maximum 20-year prison term.
A new amicus curiae brief (pdf) filed by the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation said the co-opted evidence-tampering law—18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(2)—“means whatever a creative prosecutor lacking caution wishes it to mean.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Three Jan. 6 defendants who challenged the law in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. had their obstruction charges thrown out earlier this year by Judge Carl Nichols. Federal prosecutors appealed those rulings before trial, giving defendants the standing to immediately challenge the DOJ's use of the law. Judge Nichols wrote that §1512(c)(2) “requires that the defendant have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.”
Legal researcher Jonathon Moseley, who helped prepare the FormerFedsGroup brief, said the DOJ's use of the obstruction law in Jan. 6 cases is dangerous.
“The Department of Justice has been engaged in a revolution totally changing the USA’s criminal justice system by vastly reinterpreting old laws," Mr. Moseley told The Epoch Times. "You don’t want creativity in a prosecutor any more than creative accounting.
The amicus curiae brief focuses also on how the DOJ is stripping the qualifier ‘corruptly’ out of the statute," Mr. Moseley said. "Removing that limitation means that the Biden DOJ can charge anyone—yes, any reader of The Epoch Times, anyone—with a 20-year felony.”
Mr. Moseley said the Supreme Court taking this case would be an important check on the DOJ's expansion of prosecutorial power.
“If the Biden DOJ’s adventurism is allowed to stand, it will permanently change the ability of the government to suppress the rights of American citizens," Mr. Moseley said. "Every American will be at the whim of any prosecutor to terrorize them."
I waiting for Democrat Jamaal Bowman to be charged with Obstruction of Congress for pulling the “door opening” lever...
Defense Attorneys Sound Alarm on’Recycled Jurors’ on J6 Trials:
‘I Have NEVER Seen This … In All My Years of Practicing Law’
Gateway Pundit / Posted on 10/4/2023, 11:37:46 AM by Tench_Coxe
Numerous defense attorneys representing January 6 defendants are perplexed in discovering that potential jurors are being recalled or “recycled. On Sept. 5, a day after Labor Day, defense attorneys discovered their potential jury pool consisted of jurors who were excused the week before.
“I have never seen this in all my years of practicing law.” defense attorney Steven Metcalf fumed while exiting the federal courthouse after jury selection of Zachary Alam’s trial.”Are there any jurors left in DC? What is going on here?”
(snip)
As Metcalf spoke to the approximate twentieth potential juror who confirmed they were at jury selection the week prior for another J6 trial, Judge Dabney Friedrich visibly restrained from bursting into laughter. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich. Neither Friedrich, the Marshalls nor the prosecutors could keep a straight face. (Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
He might be immune since Congress was in session.
He’s a BLACK DEMOCRAT....NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO HIM!
There, fixed it.
TRUE!
I’m glad to see these cases being taken to SCOTUS. I hope the Court takes at least one or two of these cases and overturns the verdicts. We need to see these convictions fall like dominoes culminating in the judges being called out for their obvious biases. No, the DC bar would not dole out any punishment, but at least I would have the joy of seeing the leftists and their media mockingbirds cry and moan and weep for “norms” and “our democracy”.
I’ve enjoyed throwing the “no one is above the law” phrase back into their faces when they insist that Hunter Biden’s woes are all political in nature. (Leave the President’s child alone—children are off limits! LOL). The narrative that Garland is being directed by the MAGA Trump supporters is hilarious.
“if a single senator is filibustering a crucial bill, the supermajority will simply wait out the obstruction and vote for eventual cloture.
“THE DEFINITIVE CASE FOR ENDING THE FILIBUSTER | EZRA KLEIN | OCTOBER 1, 2020 | VOX”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/obstruction
“First recorded in 1525–35; from Latin obstructiōn- (stem of obstructiō) “barrier.””
How about violations of the 8th amendment against cruel and unusual punishments? It’s time for some court somewhere to step in and end this charade of law enforcement that is actually totalitarianism at it’s worse.
If you’re planning on the Supremes making all of this right, you may be disappointed.
bkmk
He might be immune since Congress was in session.
****************
Please explain.
I assume the concern is that “speech and debate clause” of the U.S. Constitution which says no Member of Congress can be sued or charged for anything they say in the business of Congress.
I don’t think that applies to actions like this.
But it would certainly be argued about
Our law has become entirely arbitrary. Thereby, the rule of law no longer exists.
Sad — heartbreaking — but very true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.