Second U.S. judge questions constitutionality of lead felony charge against Oath Keepers in Capitol riot

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2016
15,455
27,150
2,430

Second U.S. judge questions constitutionality of lead felony charge against Oath Keepers in Capitol riot​

9 Sep 20321 ~!~ By Spenser S. Hsu

A second federal judge in Washington questioned whether the lead felony charge leveled by the government against Capitol riot defendants is unconstitutionally vague, as 18 Oath Keepers accused in a conspiracy case urged the court on Wednesday to toss out a count carrying one of the heaviest penalties against them.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing.
“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’ ” Mehta said. “. . . And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’ ”
At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.
Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.
Prosecutors have sought to distinguish such acts from protest-related civil disobedience that rarely results in prison time and more politically charged offenses such as sedition.
However, defendants in at least eight cases have moved to dismiss the count. They assert that the joint House and Senate session that met Jan. 6 does not qualify as an official proceeding of Congress; that the law is unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied; or that it does not cover individual’s alleged illegal actions, among other things.
The challenges rejoin a long-standing debate over what Congress meant when it overhauled an obstruction-of-justice statute in 2002, when as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate responsibility act it broadly expanded a provision to cover “whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.”

The Justice Department has argued that Congress intended a broad “catchall” provision for obstructive acts, passing Sarbanes-Oxley after a corporate fraud crisis wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value, including the early-2000s collapse of Enron Corp. and accounting giant Arthur Andersen.

Comment:
Initially the defendants all of at least 235 have not been charged with Insurrection. All the charges as both Judges have questioned are specious and may be dismissed.
In any case the prosecutors are overly zealous.
 
Based on some quick research and not looking into any federal prosecutors contentions, I believe the maximum punishment should be limited to 8 years (if my resources are up to date). I'm not sure where the 20 years is coming from? Perhaps I'll look further into things later, playing judge is interesting and keeps the mind active here in my retirement.

Definition​

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Overview​

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.



Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

 
Last edited:
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing.
“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’ ” Mehta said. “. . . And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’ ”

How did this idiot become a judge?

They obstructed an official proceeding by clearing the entire chamber of congress, while they were in it.
Shouting threats would be the same, if it caused the entire chamber to be evacuated.

Obstructing Congressional or Administrative Proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505)
The crime has three essential elements. First, there must be a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States.
Check

Second, the defendant must be aware of the pending proceeding.
Check

Third, the defendant must have intentionally endeavored corruptly to influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding.
Check
 
"Obstructing" is a vague charge that the police use to tack on charges. Now few had a problem with this for years when it was used against blacks but all the same it does need to end.

Anecdotal examples are just that but I know of a case where the police yelled a persons name. They didn't instruct them to "come here" or anything, they just yelled his name. He turned around and went the other way. The police filed "obstruction" charges. He was later picked up on those charges. The lawyer got them dropped but all the same it was a hassle.

It's one of those charges they add to blackmail a person. "Plead guilty to the jaywalking and we will drop the obstructing charges". It's intentionally vague and does need to stop. I would think there would be plenty of specific charges they could have filed.
 

Second U.S. judge questions constitutionality of lead felony charge against Oath Keepers in Capitol riot​

9 Sep 20321 ~!~ By Spenser S. Hsu

A second federal judge in Washington questioned whether the lead felony charge leveled by the government against Capitol riot defendants is unconstitutionally vague, as 18 Oath Keepers accused in a conspiracy case urged the court on Wednesday to toss out a count carrying one of the heaviest penalties against them.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing.
“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’ ” Mehta said. “. . . And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’ ”
At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.
Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.
Prosecutors have sought to distinguish such acts from protest-related civil disobedience that rarely results in prison time and more politically charged offenses such as sedition.
However, defendants in at least eight cases have moved to dismiss the count. They assert that the joint House and Senate session that met Jan. 6 does not qualify as an official proceeding of Congress; that the law is unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied; or that it does not cover individual’s alleged illegal actions, among other things.
The challenges rejoin a long-standing debate over what Congress meant when it overhauled an obstruction-of-justice statute in 2002, when as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate responsibility act it broadly expanded a provision to cover “whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.”

The Justice Department has argued that Congress intended a broad “catchall” provision for obstructive acts, passing Sarbanes-Oxley after a corporate fraud crisis wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value, including the early-2000s collapse of Enron Corp. and accounting giant Arthur Andersen.

Comment:
Initially the defendants all of at least 235 have not been charged with Insurrection. All the charges as both Judges have questioned are specious and may be dismissed.
In any case the prosecutors are overly zealous.
Is this judge on the case?
 

Second U.S. judge questions constitutionality of lead felony charge against Oath Keepers in Capitol riot​

9 Sep 20321 ~!~ By Spenser S. Hsu

A second federal judge in Washington questioned whether the lead felony charge leveled by the government against Capitol riot defendants is unconstitutionally vague, as 18 Oath Keepers accused in a conspiracy case urged the court on Wednesday to toss out a count carrying one of the heaviest penalties against them.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing.
“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’ ” Mehta said. “. . . And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’ ”
At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.
Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.
Prosecutors have sought to distinguish such acts from protest-related civil disobedience that rarely results in prison time and more politically charged offenses such as sedition.
However, defendants in at least eight cases have moved to dismiss the count. They assert that the joint House and Senate session that met Jan. 6 does not qualify as an official proceeding of Congress; that the law is unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied; or that it does not cover individual’s alleged illegal actions, among other things.
The challenges rejoin a long-standing debate over what Congress meant when it overhauled an obstruction-of-justice statute in 2002, when as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate responsibility act it broadly expanded a provision to cover “whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.”

The Justice Department has argued that Congress intended a broad “catchall” provision for obstructive acts, passing Sarbanes-Oxley after a corporate fraud crisis wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value, including the early-2000s collapse of Enron Corp. and accounting giant Arthur Andersen.

Comment:
Initially the defendants all of at least 235 have not been charged with Insurrection. All the charges as both Judges have questioned are specious and may be dismissed.
In any case the prosecutors are overly zealous.
I guess the judge didn't get the memo, "Orange man bad", BLM rioters good.
 
How was the counting of the electoral college votes on Jan. 6 NOT an official proceeding of Congress? The U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Section I, specifies that the President of the Senate SHALL, in the presence of the House and Senate, open all of the certificates and the votes then SHALL be counted.

The use of the word "shall" makes this procedure mandatory.

Those who participated in a conspiracy to disrupt this process, as shown by evidence of planning and discussion prior to Jan. 6, the wearing of combat gear, the transportation of weapons, not just firearms, but bear spray, batons, etc., should serve the entire 20 years for coordinating and perpetrating an attack on the U.S. Government, execution not being on the table. Some of these clowns have a history of gang activity, which would warrant an enhanced sentence.
 
What they're doing to these Jan 6 people is similar to the Russian Gulags. Our justice system is getting out of control.

Don't be ridiculous. Its nothing like the russian gulags.. Do you want togive these people a pass?


Excerpt:

The far-right group who previously aligned themselves with the former US President have turned their backs on Donald Trump, calling him a “shill”.

The Proud Boys, who vowed to disrupt the inauguration of President Joe Biden by posing as his supporters, have now turned on Mr Trump. The group expressed dismay at the former President’s inability to overturn the election, according to a report from The New York Times.

They’ve also told all their members to abandon their supporting him and stop attending his rallies, saying he is doomed to be remembered as a “failure”.
 
How was the counting of the electoral college votes on Jan. 6 NOT an official proceeding of Congress? The U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Section I, specifies that the President of the Senate SHALL, in the presence of the House and Senate, open all of the certificates and the votes then SHALL be counted.

The use of the word "shall" makes this procedure mandatory.

Those who participated in a conspiracy to disrupt this process, as shown by evidence of planning and discussion prior to Jan. 6, the wearing of combat gear, the transportation of weapons, not just firearms, but bear spray, batons, etc., should serve the entire 20 years for coordinating and perpetrating an attack on the U.S. Government, execution not being on the table. Some of these clowns have a history of gang activity, which would warrant an enhanced sentence.


Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence.
 
Based on some quick research and not looking into any federal prosecutors contentions, I believe the maximum punishment should be limited to 8 years (if my resources are up to date). I'm not sure where the 20 years is coming from? Perhaps I'll look further into things later, playing judge is interesting and keeps the mind active here in my retirement.

Definition​

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Overview​

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.



Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.


~~~~~~
**********​
"The obstruction charge on which the government is relying so heavily may, in fact, be unconstitutional as applied to most of the Jan. 6 defendants."

The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has made clear that this guarantee is violated when the government “tak[es] away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.”
Without such guidelines, explained the high court, a criminal statute would permit “a standardless sweep” that would “allow policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections.”
How dangerous that would be in the hands of a vengeful DOJ.
But that’s exactly where we find ourselves. The Biden Administration has used an ambiguously worded criminal statute to crush President Trump’s supporters – and along with them their families and their livelihoods.
 

Forum List

Back
Top