Every 1512(c)(2) indictment against J6ers is defective, writes criminal defense attorney David Fischer (no relation.) But that is not stopping the DOJ from attempting to concoct a workaround.
Defective indictments and the DOJ now seeking more time to figure out a “ workaround” these defective indictments- at what point are these defendants being further deprived of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of the law? When will this end? How to make this end?
One part of this quote is especially insightful. It is the idea that the deprivation of due process rights won't end as long as the existing administrative state have any power.
The judiciary, in its design under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, is not an administrative state. However, when its officials from the courts to the prosecutors to the state bar associations intentionally abdicate from their duty to enforce the rules of conduct,
they are an existing administrative state because they are not answerable to anyone.
This is documented in The Runnymede Report time and time and time again in newsletters. When they are not legitimate due process violations are as easy as a walk in the park.
So disheartening to know that without shouldering any blame, the DOJ will immediately skip to their plan to lengthen sentences with this law by giving themselves opportunity to fix their mistake.
Those appointed and entrusted to uphold the law and who deliberately do the opposite deserve the severest of all punishments. These perpetrators are worried about revenge. That is not what the election is about. It is about the restoration of justice... of crime and punishment.
This is an eye-opening quote: "Those appointed and entrusted to uphold the law and who deliberately do the opposite deserve the severest of all punishments."
When it comes to the judiciary they are rightly judged by this standard. An inalienable right and cornerstone of the American legal system is that a man accused of crime is legally entitled to be presumed innocent. In major politically charged cases the judiciary removes what is "inalienable." Here is the logical question: if
they can't protect this inalienable right, why do we have them at all?
David Fischer reveals due process requirements. Rhoda Forbes-Kirk takes this idea to an expanded understanding: "At what point are these defendants being further further deprived of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law? When will this end? How to make this end?" The root of this problem lies in the fact that this deprivation comes from federal prosecutors who have been participating in a federal protection racket. These federal
prosecutors are given powers so broad that they have no fear of consequences for the wrongs they commit. This is because, even though the state bar association has exclusive control over disciplining them, the Department of Justice did a workaround by inventing the Office of
Professional Responsibility. It has no authority to take away the license of these federal prosecutors while simultaneously given the state bar association the political excuse to stay out of their disciplinary function. No wonder the federal prosecutor has unlimited range of conduct in defeating the due process rights of defendants. When will this end? How to make this end?
It will end when the public is made aware of this protection racket and demand that these federal prosecutors face disbarment when they break the professional rules of conduct.
You're right, Kevin Beck. Trust is a big deal. There are three branches of government. Of the three, the Judiciary is required to be apolitical in providing a check and balance against the other two. However, when the judges, the prosecutors and the state bar association en masse break the professional rules of conduct, most infamously in ganging up on targeted defendants as they collude with the news media to take out the defendant's legal right to be presumed innocence. They do this for purely political reasons. Indeed, this is their standard operating procedure. With all this, it is no wonder that we cannot trust our own government.
This is all such a disgrace. So very many lives have been ruined. And the DOJ is still in hot pursuit to indict as many J6ers as they can before the election. Even if this SCOTUS ruling allows for overturning some convictions, the damage to lives has been done. Thank you, Julie, for continuing your reporting and investigation into this shameful time of our DOJ.
There is a section that Julie alludes to about a "failure to allege each and every essential element of a crime in an indictment equals a failure to charge a crime, and courts cannot punish those who were never charged with a crime." I wish this applied to New York law because then Trump's New York trial could have been tossed, as it should have been.
My thoughts exactly. I understand that Merchan needed the 60 days to suspend the sentence but also to vacate the verdict. If there were a crime with all its elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt, I would accept this conviction. But as is, I cannot. Where’s the 35th count? The 34 are misdemeanors.
Theee was no crimes. No misdemeanors and no felonies. The accounting entries in Trump’s private company’s books were accurate. The payments to Cohen were legal expenses - reimbursement for the settlement of a legal matter. It also predated Trump’s candidacy. Compare Trump’s alleged crime to Hillary’s campaign’s efforts to conceal their involvement in the Steele Dossier. The campaign paid its lawyers, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Steele. The campaign called it a legal expense, but the Steele Dossier was not a legal matter. It was political research. Needless to say, Hillary wasn’t prosecuted.
Aldo, compare to the infamous letter from 51 intelligence officials who suggested that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. The Biden campaign solicited the letter, which was false and misleading, solely to protect the Biden campaign. No one has been indicted for fraud, election interference or illegal in kind campaign contributions.
It was a farce. But it was what Democrats and New Yorkers wanted--to allow them to call Trump a felon. And the fact that no superior courts stepped in to call the whole thing off certainly says a lot about the current justice system.
But Trump is the one who is a threat to democracy? It's stunning, isn't it?
Yes, Norma Odiaga is hitting the mark here. Our judiciary is linked from top to bottom in duties. The state bar is under the express duty to report professional misconduct. So are prosecutors that are aware of what one prosecutor is doing. So are the judges on "every level." Indeed, the rules say if all of these officials do not
report the professional misconduct of one prosecutor, all of them are guilty of professional misconduct. Trump can be called a felon because of what "all" of them did in not disciplining DA Bragg as he colluded with the news media to remove Trump's presumption of innocence in leaks and statements to them.
Though the focus is on the 1/6 defendants here, a broader point is involved when it comes to the jury decision reached in the Bragg prosecution against Trump. In that case,
the prosecutor colluded with the news media to vilify Trump in before trial publicity. In an uncorrupted legal system, he would have been disbarred under the rules of conduct for doing so. Instead, the state bar association and the judiciary overseers played along to make sure it happened. How effective was it? It totally contaminated the jury before the case even started. And even now the judiciary officials continue to drown in this corruption ensuring that there would be no consequences for DA Bragg's disbarrable conduct.
Great column. The DOJ 's case is dead. The J6 defendants are more than innocent of the 1512 (c)(2) indictments. The government knew they were innocent and deliberately sidestepped traditional interpretation of such laws for the sole purpose of silencing speech using this unambiguous law to intimidate by prosecution and incarceration. Is this any way to run the American government? Does anyone believe that the very people, appointed to apply the law equally and fairly, who, instead, knowingly robbed innocent Americans of their freedoms and lives do not deserve to be prosecuted?
The government also used it to put fear into other protests! We all were all denied our right of free speech! I pray these people get out of jail soon!
The point was to shut down dissent by MAGA, and it worked. When combined with the Hunter laptop censorship, and election fraud it adds up to a coup. A conspiracy to steal the country from the People. It seems to have worked for the last 3+ years. I wonder, however, if it can be exposed and redressed?
As long as the corrupt trial and appellate judges and juries in DC have any say, the J6ers will be found guilty of whatever the DoJ charges. That town is so in the tank for the deep state, there will never be any justice in that swamp. They will be convicted, lose at the appellate division and 10 years from now the Supreme Court will vacate the latest round of convictions and the merry-go-round will start all over again. This is all about sending a message, and they will continue to send that message until we are all in the gulag.
Thank you David Fischer for filling in for Julie Kelly on today's substack. I guess no one is above the law except the people in the DOJ that twist it and manipulate it to fit their agenda. I certainly hope there is a day of reckoning for these people, and that we follow the actual law to nail them for treasonous acts!
The legal analysis in this article relates to a controversy about the language of Section 230 of the Communications Act.
Social media companies argue Section 230 gives them the ability to arbitrarily and capriciously censor anything they want.
This is the excerpt they rely on；
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected…
As I understand it, in analysis of statutes where there is a list of items followed by a catch-all phrase (e.g. …”and other similar items”, “or otherwise objectionable…”, etc.), to utilize the catch-all phrase, the item at issue must in some meaningful way be similar to or have a relationship with the items listed. Censorship under Section 230 would need to be based on the language in some way resembling that which is obscene, filthy, excessively violent, etc.
if the law writers had meant to give media platforms the ability to censor at their sole discretion, they easily could’ve said that with far fewer words.
Section 230 gives social media companies protection from liability i.e. they can't be sued. In return, they are supposed to be common carriers for whatever people want to post, subject to the limitations described above. Social media companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have liability protection, and they want to make editorial decisions on what to allow or not allow on their platforms just as a publisher would.
"We the People" request Honorable releases of all J6 Political Hostages now!
No more time or work arounds for the DOJ and whoever else the DOJ is and has been beholden to!
The American Justice System has coerced, used covert actions, used kangaroo courts, bias juries and venues in order to get plea bargains from hostages being held and treated unjustly.
It is time for the DOJ to plea bargain with "We the People" referencing their false narratives and the paths to suicides and the harm to Political Hostages and their livelihoods.
Your amazing Julie and we hope and pray these nutcases burning hell and the J6ers get out of hell on earth these demonic Democrats have put them in for absolutely nothing
Thank you so much Julie!! I am emailing this article to many through Corrlinks. So many J6ers with 1512 were very discouraged but I'm sure this will lift spirits. I hope we can find a way to help them file the HP 2255 Pro Se. This is awesome news!
Could you please explain why Amy Comey Barrett was one of the dissenting jurist in this ruling. What did she disagree with? It seems so evident what this ruling was pertaining to.
Blessings to you, Julie... and Mr. Fischer, for your work in helping acquit Tom Caldwell. I pray that justice comes to those who visited the horrors on him and his wife these past few years. May they - as well as all the unjustly charged J6ers - go on to lives of healing and peace, as much as possible.
Thanks for this update, Julie, because it's always instructional to read the educated opinion from a defense attorney. At the risk of being redundant, I pray that Judge Aileen Cannon rules in favor of the motion to dismiss because that idiot M. Garland usurped his authority when he unconstitutionally appointed his favorite attack dog, aka Jack Smith.
This is very complicated, I’m glad I chose to go to Auburn and study engineering, my P.E. Exam was much easier than trying to comprehend legal opinions. I hope someone can explain this in layman’s terms.
Defective indictments and the DOJ now seeking more time to figure out a “ workaround” these defective indictments- at what point are these defendants being further deprived of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of the law? When will this end? How to make this end?
It won't end as long as the Democrats and the existing administrative state have any power.
One part of this quote is especially insightful. It is the idea that the deprivation of due process rights won't end as long as the existing administrative state have any power.
The judiciary, in its design under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, is not an administrative state. However, when its officials from the courts to the prosecutors to the state bar associations intentionally abdicate from their duty to enforce the rules of conduct,
they are an existing administrative state because they are not answerable to anyone.
This is documented in The Runnymede Report time and time and time again in newsletters. When they are not legitimate due process violations are as easy as a walk in the park.
So disheartening to know that without shouldering any blame, the DOJ will immediately skip to their plan to lengthen sentences with this law by giving themselves opportunity to fix their mistake.
Those appointed and entrusted to uphold the law and who deliberately do the opposite deserve the severest of all punishments. These perpetrators are worried about revenge. That is not what the election is about. It is about the restoration of justice... of crime and punishment.
This is an eye-opening quote: "Those appointed and entrusted to uphold the law and who deliberately do the opposite deserve the severest of all punishments."
When it comes to the judiciary they are rightly judged by this standard. An inalienable right and cornerstone of the American legal system is that a man accused of crime is legally entitled to be presumed innocent. In major politically charged cases the judiciary removes what is "inalienable." Here is the logical question: if
they can't protect this inalienable right, why do we have them at all?
David Fischer reveals due process requirements. Rhoda Forbes-Kirk takes this idea to an expanded understanding: "At what point are these defendants being further further deprived of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law? When will this end? How to make this end?" The root of this problem lies in the fact that this deprivation comes from federal prosecutors who have been participating in a federal protection racket. These federal
prosecutors are given powers so broad that they have no fear of consequences for the wrongs they commit. This is because, even though the state bar association has exclusive control over disciplining them, the Department of Justice did a workaround by inventing the Office of
Professional Responsibility. It has no authority to take away the license of these federal prosecutors while simultaneously given the state bar association the political excuse to stay out of their disciplinary function. No wonder the federal prosecutor has unlimited range of conduct in defeating the due process rights of defendants. When will this end? How to make this end?
It will end when the public is made aware of this protection racket and demand that these federal prosecutors face disbarment when they break the professional rules of conduct.
If we can't trust our own government (of which, the Democrats remind us, we are all part of) to act truthfully, then who can we trust?
You're right, Kevin Beck. Trust is a big deal. There are three branches of government. Of the three, the Judiciary is required to be apolitical in providing a check and balance against the other two. However, when the judges, the prosecutors and the state bar association en masse break the professional rules of conduct, most infamously in ganging up on targeted defendants as they collude with the news media to take out the defendant's legal right to be presumed innocence. They do this for purely political reasons. Indeed, this is their standard operating procedure. With all this, it is no wonder that we cannot trust our own government.
This is all such a disgrace. So very many lives have been ruined. And the DOJ is still in hot pursuit to indict as many J6ers as they can before the election. Even if this SCOTUS ruling allows for overturning some convictions, the damage to lives has been done. Thank you, Julie, for continuing your reporting and investigation into this shameful time of our DOJ.
There is a section that Julie alludes to about a "failure to allege each and every essential element of a crime in an indictment equals a failure to charge a crime, and courts cannot punish those who were never charged with a crime." I wish this applied to New York law because then Trump's New York trial could have been tossed, as it should have been.
My thoughts exactly. I understand that Merchan needed the 60 days to suspend the sentence but also to vacate the verdict. If there were a crime with all its elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt, I would accept this conviction. But as is, I cannot. Where’s the 35th count? The 34 are misdemeanors.
Theee was no crimes. No misdemeanors and no felonies. The accounting entries in Trump’s private company’s books were accurate. The payments to Cohen were legal expenses - reimbursement for the settlement of a legal matter. It also predated Trump’s candidacy. Compare Trump’s alleged crime to Hillary’s campaign’s efforts to conceal their involvement in the Steele Dossier. The campaign paid its lawyers, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Steele. The campaign called it a legal expense, but the Steele Dossier was not a legal matter. It was political research. Needless to say, Hillary wasn’t prosecuted.
Aldo, compare to the infamous letter from 51 intelligence officials who suggested that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. The Biden campaign solicited the letter, which was false and misleading, solely to protect the Biden campaign. No one has been indicted for fraud, election interference or illegal in kind campaign contributions.
And yet all of those elite New Yorkers were cheering. How is that even possible? Are they that brainwashed or uninformed?
They certainly have had Hillary's back through all of her criminal actions.
I think it does apply. The indictments themselves are flawed, as well as the jury decision.
It was a farce. But it was what Democrats and New Yorkers wanted--to allow them to call Trump a felon. And the fact that no superior courts stepped in to call the whole thing off certainly says a lot about the current justice system.
But Trump is the one who is a threat to democracy? It's stunning, isn't it?
Indeed. Insanity. But that seems to be our reality lately.
Yes, Norma Odiaga is hitting the mark here. Our judiciary is linked from top to bottom in duties. The state bar is under the express duty to report professional misconduct. So are prosecutors that are aware of what one prosecutor is doing. So are the judges on "every level." Indeed, the rules say if all of these officials do not
report the professional misconduct of one prosecutor, all of them are guilty of professional misconduct. Trump can be called a felon because of what "all" of them did in not disciplining DA Bragg as he colluded with the news media to remove Trump's presumption of innocence in leaks and statements to them.
Though the focus is on the 1/6 defendants here, a broader point is involved when it comes to the jury decision reached in the Bragg prosecution against Trump. In that case,
the prosecutor colluded with the news media to vilify Trump in before trial publicity. In an uncorrupted legal system, he would have been disbarred under the rules of conduct for doing so. Instead, the state bar association and the judiciary overseers played along to make sure it happened. How effective was it? It totally contaminated the jury before the case even started. And even now the judiciary officials continue to drown in this corruption ensuring that there would be no consequences for DA Bragg's disbarrable conduct.
Great column. The DOJ 's case is dead. The J6 defendants are more than innocent of the 1512 (c)(2) indictments. The government knew they were innocent and deliberately sidestepped traditional interpretation of such laws for the sole purpose of silencing speech using this unambiguous law to intimidate by prosecution and incarceration. Is this any way to run the American government? Does anyone believe that the very people, appointed to apply the law equally and fairly, who, instead, knowingly robbed innocent Americans of their freedoms and lives do not deserve to be prosecuted?
The government also used it to put fear into other protests! We all were all denied our right of free speech! I pray these people get out of jail soon!
Correct. That was the intent.
The point was to shut down dissent by MAGA, and it worked. When combined with the Hunter laptop censorship, and election fraud it adds up to a coup. A conspiracy to steal the country from the People. It seems to have worked for the last 3+ years. I wonder, however, if it can be exposed and redressed?
I'll repeat this for every post.
God bless you Julie Kelly and your heart and hard work.
As long as the corrupt trial and appellate judges and juries in DC have any say, the J6ers will be found guilty of whatever the DoJ charges. That town is so in the tank for the deep state, there will never be any justice in that swamp. They will be convicted, lose at the appellate division and 10 years from now the Supreme Court will vacate the latest round of convictions and the merry-go-round will start all over again. This is all about sending a message, and they will continue to send that message until we are all in the gulag.
Thank you David Fischer for filling in for Julie Kelly on today's substack. I guess no one is above the law except the people in the DOJ that twist it and manipulate it to fit their agenda. I certainly hope there is a day of reckoning for these people, and that we follow the actual law to nail them for treasonous acts!
The legal analysis in this article relates to a controversy about the language of Section 230 of the Communications Act.
Social media companies argue Section 230 gives them the ability to arbitrarily and capriciously censor anything they want.
This is the excerpt they rely on；
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected…
As I understand it, in analysis of statutes where there is a list of items followed by a catch-all phrase (e.g. …”and other similar items”, “or otherwise objectionable…”, etc.), to utilize the catch-all phrase, the item at issue must in some meaningful way be similar to or have a relationship with the items listed. Censorship under Section 230 would need to be based on the language in some way resembling that which is obscene, filthy, excessively violent, etc.
if the law writers had meant to give media platforms the ability to censor at their sole discretion, they easily could’ve said that with far fewer words.
Section 230 gives social media companies protection from liability i.e. they can't be sued. In return, they are supposed to be common carriers for whatever people want to post, subject to the limitations described above. Social media companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have liability protection, and they want to make editorial decisions on what to allow or not allow on their platforms just as a publisher would.
"We the People" request Honorable releases of all J6 Political Hostages now!
No more time or work arounds for the DOJ and whoever else the DOJ is and has been beholden to!
The American Justice System has coerced, used covert actions, used kangaroo courts, bias juries and venues in order to get plea bargains from hostages being held and treated unjustly.
It is time for the DOJ to plea bargain with "We the People" referencing their false narratives and the paths to suicides and the harm to Political Hostages and their livelihoods.
The Truths and the Supreme Court rules!
The stereotyping and J6 witch hunts ends.
Your amazing Julie and we hope and pray these nutcases burning hell and the J6ers get out of hell on earth these demonic Democrats have put them in for absolutely nothing
Thank you so much Julie!! I am emailing this article to many through Corrlinks. So many J6ers with 1512 were very discouraged but I'm sure this will lift spirits. I hope we can find a way to help them file the HP 2255 Pro Se. This is awesome news!
Hey Julie,
Could you please explain why Amy Comey Barrett was one of the dissenting jurist in this ruling. What did she disagree with? It seems so evident what this ruling was pertaining to.
Thanks
Blessings to you, Julie... and Mr. Fischer, for your work in helping acquit Tom Caldwell. I pray that justice comes to those who visited the horrors on him and his wife these past few years. May they - as well as all the unjustly charged J6ers - go on to lives of healing and peace, as much as possible.
"A MAN'S RIGHTS REST IN 3 BOXES;
THE BALLOT BOX,
THE JURY BOX, AND
THE CARTRIDGE BOX."
Frederick Douglass
Thanks for this update, Julie, because it's always instructional to read the educated opinion from a defense attorney. At the risk of being redundant, I pray that Judge Aileen Cannon rules in favor of the motion to dismiss because that idiot M. Garland usurped his authority when he unconstitutionally appointed his favorite attack dog, aka Jack Smith.
This is very complicated, I’m glad I chose to go to Auburn and study engineering, my P.E. Exam was much easier than trying to comprehend legal opinions. I hope someone can explain this in layman’s terms.