I'm Not Talking About An Act of Aggressive Advocacy -- I'm Talking About Misrepresentations In Downplaying the Sentencing Realities in January 6 Cases.
In any other Administration, at any other time, I would expect more from the DOJ. But, now, with this rogue Regime and its rampant abuse of Federal law enforcement powers, this type of gamesmanship before the Supreme Court is par for the course.
What I found interesting was the Government's obvious effort to downplay the jail time sought by the DOJ in the J6 cases. That is the best indicator there is of how heavy-handed and over the top the use of the 18 USC 1512 has been: the Feds don't want to admit it to the Court.
That soft-pedal presentation to SCOTUS must irk you, since no doubt the DOJ's presentation to your clients is quite the opposite. The DOJ tells defendants "we are gonna hammer your arse" and then tries to put the people away for 20 years, then goes to SCOTUS and acts like their use of the same statute is judiciously and cautiously applied resulting in sentences a tiny fraction of that. What a mindless bunch of balderdash.
Anyone who reads the paper knows the SG was full of crap. I highly doubt her duplicity will fool the Justices. Let us hope anyway.
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
I'm curious, how much of what you wrote about makes it into the deliberations of the SCOTUS?
Do their legal clerks look at the arguments presented by both sides or other friend of the court filings and/or independent analysis of these legal arguments to put what was presented in court in perspective?
It appeared that SCOTUS was more aware of the J6 legal situation than I would have expected. So is it possible that they would also have some awareness of the DOJ's aggressive sentencing policies for J6 defendants? IE how might the real conditions be communicated to the Court?
Sad and disturbing, but hopefully SCOTUS will get it right in the end. I don’t believe this would ever have happened if these were left wing protesters angry with a Trump win.
Idea: Bring this up as a disciplinary complaint to the Supreme Court.
The SG is a member of the Supreme Court Bar. She can be disciplined by a Bar proceeding or more directly by some kind of Civil Rule 11 motion by somebody. There must be a way for someone not a party to make a Bar complaint, and maybe is a way for a non-party to make a Rule 11-type motion. Neither submission would get the SG punished formally. The reasons to try would be:
1. This would bring the falsity of the information to the attention of the Court, which would help their deliberations on the case; and
2. It would scare the SG into behaving better in the future, or at least to not be emboldened to behave even worse; and
3. The Court might react by privately rebuking her, which would restrain her even better.
I would not expect any public reaction by the Court, which is fine.
If someone wants to help me by figuring out all the procedural necessities, I am willing to pursue this,---basically rewriting this Substack into disciplinary complaint form-- if nobody else wants to put their name on it. Just a month or so ago I worked with Jim Bopp in my amicus for NetChoice v. Paxton, so I know a bold Supreme Court Bar lawyer I could probably get to submit papers. ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-555/298407/20240123110046414_Rasmusen%20Amicus%20Brief%20Filing.pdf.) But I don't want to do the procedural research myself or hire a lawyer to figure it out.
This case is hilarious too. Particularly how the Biden DOJ views the word "corruptly", essentially ignoring the 1st amendment protesting of most of the J6 people, and the fact the DOJ did nothing for similar actions in the Summer of 2020 and the Kavanaugh Hearings. Because the leftists were not acting "corruptly", whereas the Republicans were advocating "insurrection" ignoring the fact Trump was still president.
Snyder v. U.S., No. 23-108 [Arg: 4.15.2024]
Issue(s): Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions. Particularly debating the word “corruptly” as defined by the Biden DOJ.
In any other Administration, at any other time, I would expect more from the DOJ. But, now, with this rogue Regime and its rampant abuse of Federal law enforcement powers, this type of gamesmanship before the Supreme Court is par for the course.
What I found interesting was the Government's obvious effort to downplay the jail time sought by the DOJ in the J6 cases. That is the best indicator there is of how heavy-handed and over the top the use of the 18 USC 1512 has been: the Feds don't want to admit it to the Court.
That soft-pedal presentation to SCOTUS must irk you, since no doubt the DOJ's presentation to your clients is quite the opposite. The DOJ tells defendants "we are gonna hammer your arse" and then tries to put the people away for 20 years, then goes to SCOTUS and acts like their use of the same statute is judiciously and cautiously applied resulting in sentences a tiny fraction of that. What a mindless bunch of balderdash.
Anyone who reads the paper knows the SG was full of crap. I highly doubt her duplicity will fool the Justices. Let us hope anyway.
a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
Great write up Bill.
I'm curious, how much of what you wrote about makes it into the deliberations of the SCOTUS?
Do their legal clerks look at the arguments presented by both sides or other friend of the court filings and/or independent analysis of these legal arguments to put what was presented in court in perspective?
Would one or more SCOTUS Justices independently verify the SG's sentencing claim or will all just take her word for it?
It appeared that SCOTUS was more aware of the J6 legal situation than I would have expected. So is it possible that they would also have some awareness of the DOJ's aggressive sentencing policies for J6 defendants? IE how might the real conditions be communicated to the Court?
Sad and disturbing, but hopefully SCOTUS will get it right in the end. I don’t believe this would ever have happened if these were left wing protesters angry with a Trump win.
Idea: Bring this up as a disciplinary complaint to the Supreme Court.
The SG is a member of the Supreme Court Bar. She can be disciplined by a Bar proceeding or more directly by some kind of Civil Rule 11 motion by somebody. There must be a way for someone not a party to make a Bar complaint, and maybe is a way for a non-party to make a Rule 11-type motion. Neither submission would get the SG punished formally. The reasons to try would be:
1. This would bring the falsity of the information to the attention of the Court, which would help their deliberations on the case; and
2. It would scare the SG into behaving better in the future, or at least to not be emboldened to behave even worse; and
3. The Court might react by privately rebuking her, which would restrain her even better.
I would not expect any public reaction by the Court, which is fine.
If someone wants to help me by figuring out all the procedural necessities, I am willing to pursue this,---basically rewriting this Substack into disciplinary complaint form-- if nobody else wants to put their name on it. Just a month or so ago I worked with Jim Bopp in my amicus for NetChoice v. Paxton, so I know a bold Supreme Court Bar lawyer I could probably get to submit papers. ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-555/298407/20240123110046414_Rasmusen%20Amicus%20Brief%20Filing.pdf.) But I don't want to do the procedural research myself or hire a lawyer to figure it out.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_8#:~:text=After%20reasonable%20notice%20and%20an,of%20the%20Bar%20or%20for
This case is hilarious too. Particularly how the Biden DOJ views the word "corruptly", essentially ignoring the 1st amendment protesting of most of the J6 people, and the fact the DOJ did nothing for similar actions in the Summer of 2020 and the Kavanaugh Hearings. Because the leftists were not acting "corruptly", whereas the Republicans were advocating "insurrection" ignoring the fact Trump was still president.
Snyder v. U.S., No. 23-108 [Arg: 4.15.2024]
Issue(s): Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions. Particularly debating the word “corruptly” as defined by the Biden DOJ.