The importance of the word "otherwise."

[berg80]

Supreme Court to weigh if Jan. 6 rioters can be charged with obstruction

Much of the discussion on Tuesday is expected to center on how to properly interpret the text of a statute Congress amended in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed the Enron scandal. As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.

The law includes a penalty of up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/

I had not heard this was coming. It's a case with enormous potential implications. Both for some Jan. 6 riot defendants and for the election.

Defense counsel for the rioters claim charges applying to the obstruction of an official proceeding have been applied too broadly. That the statute used by prosecutors doesn't apply to them.

The high court’s ruling, likely to land in late June, has the potential to undo the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or pleaded guilty, and upend the charges still pending for many more. Three Jan. 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced ahead of a decision by the Supreme Court.

The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters.

Any case involving the SC having a potential positive affect on His Orangeness's candidacy makes me nervous given its recent track record of ignoring established law in order to facilitate an ideologically driven outcome.

 

[Libby von H]

Supreme Court to weigh if Jan. 6 rioters can be charged with obstruction

Much of the discussion on Tuesday is expected to center on how to properly interpret the text of a statute Congress amended in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed the Enron scandal. As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.

The law includes a penalty of up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/

I had not heard this was coming. It's a case with enormous potential implications. Both for some Jan. 6 riot defendants and for the election.

Defense counsel for the rioters claim charges applying to the obstruction of an official proceeding have been applied too broadly. That the statute used by prosecutors doesn't apply to them.

The high court’s ruling, likely to land in late June, has the potential to undo the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or pleaded guilty, and upend the charges still pending for many more. Three Jan. 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced ahead of a decision by the Supreme Court.

The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters.

Any case involving the SC having a potential positive affect on His Orangeness's candidacy makes me nervous given its recent track record of ignoring established law in order to facilitate an ideologically driven outcome.

It is bullshit, ALL EX POST FACTO

 

[berg80]

It is bullshit, ALL EX POST FACTO

Indeed.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defending the Justice Department, told the court in filings that the second clause should be read as a “catchall” that ensures that “unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — like occupying the Capitol building and forcing the suspension of Congress’s joint session certifying the election results — are prohibited, while giving a judge discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime.”
The word “otherwise” means “in a different manner,” Prelogar wrote, and makes clear that Congress intended to prohibit obstruction broadly, beyond the destruction of records or documents listed in the first section of the law.

 

[Lesh]

Indeed.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defending the Justice Department, told the court in filings that the second clause should be read as a “catchall” that ensures that “unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — like occupying the Capitol building and forcing the suspension of Congress’s joint session certifying the election results — are prohibited, while giving a judge discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime.”
The word “otherwise” means “in a different manner,” Prelogar wrote, and makes clear that Congress intended to prohibit obstruction broadly, beyond the destruction of records or documents listed in the first section of the law.

That’s pretty obvious.

If this right wing court declares that these creeps did not “otherwise” interfere with the workings of Congress… they’re going to need to show what WOULD and how there is a difference.

After Roe/Dobbs I would not be surprised at anything these creeps do

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Supreme Court to weigh if Jan. 6 rioters can be charged with obstruction

Much of the discussion on Tuesday is expected to center on how to properly interpret the text of a statute Congress amended in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed the Enron scandal. As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.

The law includes a penalty of up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/

I had not heard this was coming. It's a case with enormous potential implications. Both for some Jan. 6 riot defendants and for the election.

Defense counsel for the rioters claim charges applying to the obstruction of an official proceeding have been applied too broadly. That the statute used by prosecutors doesn't apply to them.

The high court’s ruling, likely to land in late June, has the potential to undo the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or pleaded guilty, and upend the charges still pending for many more. Three Jan. 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced ahead of a decision by the Supreme Court.

The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters.

Any case involving the SC having a potential positive affect on His Orangeness's candidacy makes me nervous given its recent track record of ignoring established law in order to facilitate an ideologically driven outcome.

I'm glad the DOJ is spending so much time, money and resources on this issue, rather than doing any important work to make the nation safer. Typical Biden fuckuperrry.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Trumps first order of business is to expunge all people who were convicted of bogus charges but not the ones who were engaged in violence on Jan 6.

 

[Libby von H]

That’s pretty obvious.

If this right wing court declares that these creeps did not “otherwise” interfere with the workings of Congress… they’re going to need to show what WOULD and how there is a difference.

After Roe/Dobbs I would not be surprised at anything these creeps do

Most lawyers would see you as the creep
From an Amicus Curiae on that case

 

[Libby von H]

Supreme Court to weigh if Jan. 6 rioters can be charged with obstruction

Much of the discussion on Tuesday is expected to center on how to properly interpret the text of a statute Congress amended in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed the Enron scandal. As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.

The law includes a penalty of up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/

I had not heard this was coming. It's a case with enormous potential implications. Both for some Jan. 6 riot defendants and for the election.

Defense counsel for the rioters claim charges applying to the obstruction of an official proceeding have been applied too broadly. That the statute used by prosecutors doesn't apply to them.

The high court’s ruling, likely to land in late June, has the potential to undo the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or pleaded guilty, and upend the charges still pending for many more. Three Jan. 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced ahead of a decision by the Supreme Court.

The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters.

Any case involving the SC having a potential positive affect on His Orangeness's candidacy makes me nervous given its recent track record of ignoring established law in order to facilitate an ideologically driven outcome.

I doubt that kind of arguing does anything but make lawyers and people MAD

As an Amicus Curiae in that case has concluded:

 

[luiza]

I doubt that kind of arguing does anything but make lawyers and people MAD

As an Amicus Curiae in that case has concluded:
View attachment 936513

Attempted low grade trickery to fool the Gullible .

 

[elektra]

The election was certified on the date of Jan. 6th. Hence no crime, and certainly not a crime that is described in the law they are charged with violating. People need to start reading and quoting the entire law, not one word, "otherwise".

This is the law, why is it so difficult if not impossible to find this law stated or quoted in any News Source?

Who did the protestors tamper with, not a witness, victim, or an informant!

18 U.S.C. § 1512 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant​

 

[SeaMajor7]

"Some are wise, and some otherwise."

 

[berg80]

I'm glad the DOJ is spending so much time, money and resources on this issue, rather than doing any important work to make the nation safer. Typical Biden fuckuperrry.

This DOJ is committed to enforcing the rule of law as they see it. The previous DOJ had other concerns.

Barr’s ‘shocking’ request for DOJ to defend Trump in defamation lawsuit​

Barr's 'shocking' request for DOJ to defend Trump in defamation lawsuit

The Justice Department has moved to intervene in a defamation lawsuit against President Trump. In 2019, columnist E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her years ago, and later claimed his denunciations amounted to defamation. William Brangham talks to David Laufman, a former DOJ official...

www.pbs.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This DOJ is committed to enforcing the rule of law as they see it.

Exactly!

 

[berg80]

Exactly!

As the majority in the D.C. Circuit held, that should be the end of the matter. In describing the D.C. Circuit dissent, Judge Florence Pan borrowed a line from an earlier Supreme Court case to say that it seemed like “elaborate efforts to avoid the most natural reading of the text.” After all, textualism — relying on the plain text of a statute and the common understanding of its terms — is the favored method of statutory interpretation today, especially among conservatives.

Despite the plain language of the law, Mr. Fischer and his supporters argue it should be limited based on the reason behind its passage. During the Enron scandal in the early 2000s, the prosecution of the accounting giant Arthur Andersen for shredding an enormous number of documents was hamstrung by weaknesses in the existing obstruction laws. Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, which included section 1512(c), in response to that scandal. Mr. Fischer claims the statute must therefore be limited based on Congress’s intent to respond to crimes involving evidence impairment.

But as Justice Elena Kagan noted during oral arguments, that’s not what the statute says. As she also pointed out, Congress easily could have written the statute that way if that was what it meant.

Limiting the statute as Mr. Fischer proposes would lead to absurd outcomes. Members of a violent mob who shut down a proceeding would not be guilty of obstructing that proceeding. But if in the process they happened to damage an exhibit, the statute would apply. Filing a false affidavit in a proceeding would be covered, even if it had no effect at all; violently halting the entire proceeding would not.

There’s no reason Congress would pass a law that makes such irrational distinctions. Congress might have been motivated by document shredding during the Enron scandal, but it sensibly responded by passing a statute that bars all obstruction, not one that prohibits certain types of obstruction while condoning others.

Opinion | Why Is the Supreme Court Making an Easy Case Related to Jan. 6 Rioters Hard?

Will the court go out of its way to disregard statutory language and create ambiguity where none exists?

www.nytimes.com

IOW, the DoJ is enforcing the law as it was written.

​

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/travel/national-park-summer-trip.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/dining/passover-matzo-pizza.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/style/fashion-mature-adults.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/travel/national-park-summer-trip.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/dining/passover-matzo-pizza.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/style/fashion-mature-adults.html

 

[Rogue AI]

The problem here is the application of this law specifically to these defendants. There have been numerous 'disruptions and obstructions' to proceedings and this law was not applied by this same DOJ. The Court has a duty to slap down that blatant hypocrisy by this failed administration.