Tag Archives: trial

This Could Be Very Interesting

Posted on by

On March 1 (updated March 2), Trending Politics posted an article about a recent decision by a federal appeals court in Washington D.C.

The article reports:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that defendant Larry Brock — a retired Air Force colonel who was sentenced to two years in federal prison for peacefully protesting in a building — was improperly sentenced. The court took issue with the inclusion of charges of “interference with the administration of justice.”

According to Circuit Judge Millett, who authored the court’s opinion, interference with Congress’ certification of the presidential election in 2021 does not apply to a sentence enhancement.

“Brock challenges both the district court’s interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2)’s elements and the sufficiency of the evidence to support that conviction. He also challenges the district court’s application of the three-level sentencing enhancement for interfering with the ‘administration of justice,’” the opinion reads.

The court upheld Brock’s conviction but disagreed with the sentencing. “”As for Brock’s sentence, we hold that the ‘administration of justice’ enhancement does not apply to interference with the legislative process of certifying electoral votes,” Judge Millett wrote.

Obviously this decision could affect the sentences of all the January 6th political prisoners.

The article concludes:

Brock was initially arrested and charged on January 6, 2021 on just two charges: knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

The “interference” charge was added at a later date.

“Larry Brock participated in the violent January 6th riot at the United States Capitol that forced the evacuation of members of Congress and their staff and prevented Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election until the next day. After a bench trial, the court convicted Brock of six crimes, including corruptly obstructing Congress’s certification of the electoral count under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2),” Judge Millet wrote. “At sentencing, the district court applied a three level sentencing enhancement to Brock’s Section 1512(c)(2) conviction on the ground that Brock’s conduct resulted in ‘substantial interference with the administration of justice.’”

The Supreme Court is also reviewing the validity of the Biden DOJ’s use of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute.

Stay tuned.

 

This Is Very Concerning

Posted on by

CBS News reported on Tuesday that Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the Oxford High School shooter, has been found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter.

The article reports:

Jury deliberations, which lasted 11 hours, began Monday after a week-long trial to determine if the mother bears any responsibility for the Oxford High School shooting, where her son killed four students, Justin Shilling, Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, and Hana St. Juliana, and injured seven other people on Nov. 30, 2021.

The jury foreperson told CBS News Detroit’s Andres Gutierrez that one factor that the jury focused on was that Jennifer Crumbley was the last adult with the gun before her son used it in the mass shooting. 

Jennifer Crumbley is the first parent in the United States to go on trial in a mass school shooting carried out by their child. 

Mrs. Crumbley bought the gun for her son. That was really stupid, but was it any more stupid than a parent who buys a sports car for their high school child who secretly drinks? The school knew the child was troubled. The school asked that the child be taken to therapy (obviously too late). What is the school’s responsibility? Does the school have a responsibility to monitor a troubled child and keep him away from other students?

I really think this is a bad decision. Buying the child a gun was really stupid, but that really wasn’t the problem. Would the child have gotten hold of a different weapon and done the same thing? This will set a very bad precedent.

 

 

 

Follow The Money

Posted on by

On Friday, CNBC reported that the U.S. government has decided not to pursue further charges against FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried.

The article reports:

  • Prosecutors have decided against pursuing a second trial against disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried.
  • In a note to Judge Lewis Kaplan on Friday, the U.S. government said that much of the evidence that would have been presented had already been submitted during the first trial.
  • In November, following a month’s worth of testimony from nearly 20 witnesses, a jury found the former FTX chief executive guilty of all seven criminal counts against him.

The article notes:

The second trial, which had been slated to start in March, addressed an additional set of criminal counts, including conspiracy to bribe foreign officials, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business and substantive securities fraud and commodities fraud. 

Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, wrote in the letter to the Court that “a second trial would not affect the United States Sentencing Guidelines range for the defendant, because the Court can already consider all of this conduct as relevant conduct when sentencing him for the counts that he was found guilty of at the initial trial.”

I suppose it is just an incredible coincidence that after Sam Bankman-Fried donated $100 million in stolen customer funds to US politicians, the US Government announced they’re dropping six charges against SBF and will not prosecute him for a political campaign finance violation. Any guesses on what the second trial would reveal about campaign finance violations and the people who received funds illegally?

 

Safety For Me, But Not For Thee

Posted on by

As Democrats call for a defunding of the police, they seem very willing to call on the police to insure their own safety. Breitbart is reporting today that Representative Maxine Waters requested a police escort to attend the riots in Minneapolis over the weekend where she encouraged more rioting. First of all, Minneapolis is a long way from her district. Why was she there? Secondly, exactly what did her presence there do to calm things and bring peace to that troubled city? Thirdly, was she acting as part of the problem or part of the solution?

The article reports:

Townhall obtained and published the document on Monday appearing to show the request with Waters’ name listed as the primary protectee and “Police escort In & Out” listed underneath special requests.

“Waters flew from Dulles International Airport to Minnesota-St. Paul International Airport on Saturday, April 17, just days ahead of a verdict in the George Floyd, Officer Derek Chauvin trial,” the report said.

Video footage showed Waters surrounded by protesters and reporters outside the police station in Brooklyn Center where she told citizens to hit the streets unless Chauvin was convicted for murder.

“We’re looking for a guilty verdict,” she said. “And we’re looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd, if nothing does not happen, then we know that we’ve got to not only stay in the street, but we’ve got to fight for justice.”

However, Waters claimed Monday she is “nonviolent” in response to criticism after her call to protesters to “get more confrontational” if Chauvin is cleared in Floyd’s death, Breitbart News reported.

Was she in the courtroom? Has she reviewed all of the evidence? Why in the world was she there?

Pouring Gasoline On A Raging Fire

Posted on by

Yesterday Fox News reported that the Judge in the trial of Derek Chauvin was not pleased with the recent remarks made by Representative Maxine Waters.

The article reports:

A lawyer defending Derek Chauvin, who is on trial for the death of George Floyd, cited Rep. Maxine Waters’, D-Calif., comments to Minnesota protesters over the weekend in court on Monday.

“And now that we have [a] U.S. representative … threatening acts of violence in relation to this specific case, it’s it’s mind boggling…,” Attorney Eric Nelson said, as he attempted to argue that the jury may have been unduly influenced by external factors.

Judge Peter Cahill said that he wished elected officials would stop referencing the case “especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law” so as to let the judicial process play out as intended.

He added, however, that he did not believe the comments unduly influenced the jury as they had been told not to watch the news.

I hate to be cynical here, but does anyone actually believe that the jury followed the Judge’s orders not to watch the news? The jury in this trial should have been sequestered from the beginning (after the location of the trial was moved). There is no way this could ever be considered a fair trial–jurors know that if they return a not-guilty verdict there will be riots. There will probably be riots anyway, but I believe that the members of the jury fear for their safety if they produce a not-guilty verdict. Whatever the verdict is, it will probably be appealed and the country will go through more strife.

That being said, I have no idea what the correct verdict should be. I wasn’t in the courtroom. I would simply like to see rioters arrested and held in jail for a minimum of thirty days without bail so that they could cool off. That might discourage future riots. Meanwhile, I would like to know what stealing and burning buildings have to do with protesting.

There Has Been An Arrest

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today that Derek Chauvin, the fired Minneapolis police officer who was seen on video kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, has been arrested. The other three officers were not arrested.

CBS Minnesota is reporting:

Fired Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has been arrested four days after George Floyd’s fatal arrest that sparked protests, rioting and outcry across the city and nation, and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced he has been charged with murder and manslaughter, with the charges scheduled to be released shortly.

Every American is entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers. Therefore, despite the video and what appears on it, we need to withhold judgement until Mr. Chauvin has been tried. However, it is encouraging to me that he has been arrested and charged with murder in relation to the death of George Floyd. Hopefully this will provide closure for the family of George Floyd and might help calm some of the protestors that have created so much havoc in Minneapolis.

 

 

An Interesting Take On Impeachment

Posted on by

The American Thinker posted an article today about the next step in the impeachment process.

The article notes:

The latest reporting I’ve seen is that the Senate will take up President Trump’s impeachment trial this week.  What’s wrong with that, you ask?  I’ve already said what’s wrong: the Schiff-Nadler Star Chamber violated President Trump’s Fifth Amendment rights to procedural due process, rendering the resulting impeachment articles null and void as “poisoned fruit.”  The GOP leadership should do what the Founders would have done: challenge the legal legitimacy of the impeachment articles.  The logic blueprint I will present below — Mr. Jefferson knew logic — will help make the case in court.

As we know, protecting the rights of the accused is of fundamental importance in a just legal system and is a key motivation behind the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which asserts that “[no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  The Supreme Court has interpreted due process broadly to include:

    • procedural due process rights,
    • substantive due process rights, and
    • prohibition against vague laws
    • as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Of concern here are only procedural due process rights (PDPRs), which include:

    1. An unbiased tribunal.
    2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
    3. The opportunity to present reasons for the proposed action not to be taken.
    4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
    5. The right to know the opposing evidence.
    6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
    7. A decision based only on the evidence presented.
    8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
    9. A requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
    10. A requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

I can sum this up with one question, “If you were on trial would you be happy to have the same rights as a defendant that President Trump was given by the House of Representatives?”

If the God-given rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by our Constitution matter, the impeachment case put together by the House of Representatives needs to be thrown out for not respecting those rights.

A Proposed Resolution By Senator Josh Hawley

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a Resolution in the Senate regarding the delay of the House of Representative’s delay in forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The Resolution states:

Title: Amending the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials.

Resolved, That rule I of the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials is amended to read as follows:

“I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

If, following adoption of such articles, the House of Representatives does not so notify the Senate or otherwise provide for such articles to be exhibited to the Senate within 25 calendar days from the date of adoption of such articles, as recorded in the Journal of the House of Representatives, such articles shall be deemed exhibited before the Senate and it shall be in order for any Senator to offer a motion to dismiss such articles with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles. Such motion shall be adopted by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators, duly chosen and sworn, without debate by the yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record.”.

The article provides background for the Resolution:

The Senate has adopted a set of 26 rules that govern all impeachment proceedings, known as the “Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials.” Those Rules presume prompt delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate following their adoption by the House. Historically, the House delivered articles of impeachment to the Senate for action almost simultaneously with the vote to impeach. During the Clinton impeachment, for example, the articles were transmitted to the Senate the same day they were approved. Consequently, the current Senate rules have no mechanism to address Speaker Pelosi’s unprecedented attempt to prevent a Senate trial by withholding the articles after the President has been impeached.

Speaker Pelosi’s gambit raises grave constitutional concerns. Article 1, Section 3 gives the Senate the “sole” power to try impeachment cases. But if the Speaker refuses to transmit the articles after the President has been impeached, she could prevent the Senate from exercising its constitutional prerogative, perhaps indefinitely.

Senator Hawley’s resolution would amend the Senate’s impeachment rules to prevent this abuse of the Constitution and protect the Senate’s sole power to try impeachment. The resolution would allow the Senate to dismiss for lack of prosecution any articles of impeachment that the House of Representatives has delayed transmitting for 25 calendar days or more. Under this new rule, any Senator would be entitled to move to dismiss once the allotted time period had elapsed. Any motion to dismiss would be voted upon by the full Senate.

This should provide the impetus for Speaker Pelosi to forward the articles of impeachment and stop this endless delay.

Wondering If This Will Actually Happen

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about the negotiations surrounding the trial of Jeffrey Epstein.

The article reports:

Jet-setting financier and convicted sex offender Jeffery Epstein’s trial on child sex trafficking charges won’t start until next June, at the earliest.

Federal prosecutors clashed with lawyers representing the jet-setting financier Wednesday over when the trial should begin, with the government arguing it should kick off next June, while the defense advocated for a post-Labor Day 2020 start date.

The judge didn’t make a definitive ruling, though he said June 2020 is the earliest the high-profile trial, expected to last four to six weeks, would commence.

Martin Weinberg, one of Epstein’s attorneys, claimed that the defense had one million pages of discovery to wade through and argued that a September 2020 trial date would be preferable because “thirteen months sounds like the appropriate amount of time it takes to prepare a case of this magnitude.”

A federal prosecutor countered that the trial should start sooner than that, telling the judge that a delay is not in the public interest and arguing that Epstein should be tried as “swiftly as possible.”

Judge Richard Berman, who finds himself in the national and international spotlight while presiding over this case, hinted the trial might begin around June 8, 2020, but said he’d revisit the exact timing of the Epstein trial in the future.

There are a lot of people who do not want to see this trial take place. Many of them are in very powerful positions in our government. In my mind there is a real question as to whether Jeffrey Epstein will survive in prison long enough to be tried. Prisoners are not known for their compassionate treatment of men who sexually assault underage girls. There are also a lot of famous people who visited his island–some on a fairly regular basis.

Stay tuned.

We Need To Know Who Made The Decision To Bulldoze The Compound

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the investigation into the Muslim compound in New Mexico where children were being trained as jihadists. The judge involved in the trial of the adults in the case let them out on signature bond. They have ankle bracelets and supposedly will be monitored, but their bail was essentially a signature. Would an American charged with multiple counts of child abuse have gotten off so easily? But then things got even stranger…

The article reports:

The story of the jihadist training compound in New Mexico takes yet another weird turn today, as federal authorities removed the partially buried trailer, bulldozed a portion of the compound in the process, and yet left key evidence including: ammunition, a bullet proof vest, birth certificates and notebooks, laying around.

…The property owner and even local media covering the story are perplexed by the sketchy and haphazard investigative activity of federal authorities charged with investigating the events.  This follows earlier local reports of the feds clearing the compound, only to have the property owner discover tunnels, weapons and ammunition overlooked by the FBI.

…Local media are struggling to present an appropriate context for ongoing events, as the local courts have released the terrorist suspects without bail.

In releasing the suspects: where does the judge think they are going to live considering their previous residence was the illegal terrorist training compound?

The entire story is beyond sketchy, and unfortunately when things get this sketchy in the investigative process we are reminded of the fingerprints of the DOJ-CRS (Dept. of Justice, Community Relations Service).  The CRS is a secret institution within the DOJ Civil Rights Division consisting of very-far-left activists who are allowed to reach into the judiciary and justice system and essentially take over.

Stay tuned. I suspect there will be more on this story when the defendants disappear.