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...
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...
BillsFanNC Posted May 21 Author Share Posted May 21 🎯 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 6 Author Share Posted June 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 21 Author Share Posted June 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 Boom. ***** off commies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 In the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Fischer v. United States, the court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. The case is returned to the lower court to determine whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation. https://www.scotusblog.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 Wow. KBJ with majority and ACB continues to be a massive disappointment joins dissent. Roberts for 6-3 court: "The Government’s theory would also criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyist to decades in prison. Our usual approach in obstruction cases has been to “resist reading” particular sub-provisions “to create a coverall statute.” Yates, 574 U. S., at 549 (plurality opinion). Nothing in the text or statutory history gives the Court a reason to depart from that practice today. And the Government’s interpretation would give prosecutors broad discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw fit to punish with far shorter sentences. By reading (c)(2) in light of (c)(1), the Court affords proper respect to “the prerogatives of Congress” in carrying out the quintessentially legislative act of defining crimes and setting the penalties for them. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U. S. 593, 600. 64 F. 4th 329, vacated and remanded." ACB joins DISSENT. KBJ joins Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kav, Gorsuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Ketanji Jackson joined the opinion? The hell? I’ll have to read her concurrence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 KJB knew what it would do to the BLM/marxists if this door was opened. This is proof, while rare, that a Democrat can think ahead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts