{"id":2036619,"date":"2023-09-18T22:14:02","date_gmt":"2023-09-19T02:14:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/3-more-jan-6-defendants-ask-supreme-court-to-review-widely-charged-obstruction-felony\/"},"modified":"2023-09-18T22:19:39","modified_gmt":"2023-09-19T02:19:39","slug":"3-more-jan-6-defendants-ask-supreme-court-to-review-widely-charged-obstruction-felony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/3-more-jan-6-defendants-ask-supreme-court-to-review-widely-charged-obstruction-felony\/","title":{"rendered":"3 Jan. 6 Defendants Seek Supreme Court Review of Obstruction Felony Charges"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2F3-more-jan-6-defendants-ask-supreme-court-to-review-widely-charged-obstruction-felony%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2036619&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><blockquote>\n<h2>Three Defendants Petition Supreme Court to Review DOJ&#8217;s Use\u2062 of Evidence-Tampering Statute\u200b in Jan. 6 Cases<\/h2>\n<p>Three more criminal-case defendants \u200bhave joined a petition seeking to have the U.S.\u2064 Supreme Court review the U.S. Department of Justice\u2019s (DOJ) novel use of an evidence-tampering statute \u200dto prosecute those who protested 2020\u200b <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/live-stream-video-georgia-house-of-representatives-holds-hearing-on-election-fraud\/\" title=\"LIVE STREAM VIDEO: Georgia House Of Representatives Holds Hearing On Election Fraud\">presidential election results<\/a> at the\u2062 Capitol on \u200cJan. 6, 2021.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>Defendants Christopher J. Warnagiris, 43, Christopher J. \u2064Carnell, 21, and William Robert Norwood III, 40, jointly filed an amici\u2063 curiae brief (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-32\/278579\/20230830170621635_44021%20pdf%20Cooperstein%20br.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">pdf<\/a>) with the Supreme Court\u2062 in support of a petition for review of the law filed on \u2063July 7 by defendant Edward Jacob Lang, 28.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>The men were charged with obstruction of an official proceeding\u2014Title 18\u200d U.S. Code \u2062Section <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?hl=false&#038;edition=prelim&#038;req=granuleid%3AUSC-1994-title18-section1512&#038;num=0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1512(c)(2)<\/a>\u2014a felony carrying up to 20 years \u200cin prison.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h3>Related Stories<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/us\/exclusive-jan-6-prisoner-takes-his-obstruction-charge-to-the-supreme-court-5309162\">EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Prisoner Takes His Obstruction Charge to the Supreme Court<\/a> (7\/15\/2023)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/us\/infowars-host-wants-to-appeal-to-us-supreme-court-over-jan-6-case-5490844\">Infowars Host Wants to Appeal to US Supreme Court Over Jan. 6 Case<\/a> (9\/13\/2023)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The DOJ was given an extended deadline\u2014Sept. 29\u2014by which to file a response to the petition for review.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>An eventual Supreme Court ruling on\u2064 the evidence-tampering statute could have \u200cfar-reaching \u200bimplications, \u200das obstruction of \u2063an official\u2063 proceeding is the most widely charged felony in \u200bJan. 6 cases.<\/p>\n<h2>Crushing Dissent<\/h2>\n<p>The stakes could not be higher, according to defense attorneys.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>\u201cIt is no overstatement to say the future of the First Amendment hangs in the balance,\u201d wrote attorneys Norman A. Pattis and Steven A. Metcalf in the July 7 petition (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-32\/270606\/20230707144513334_43948%20pdf%20Pattis%20br.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">pdf<\/a>) to the Supreme Court. \u201cA statute intended to combat financial fraud has been transformed into a blatant political instrument to crush dissent.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>The attorneys expressed fears that prosecutions \u200cbased on the obstruction charge could affect the \u20642024 presidential election.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAs the nation\u2019s attention turns to the 2024 election, there\u2063 is\u200b good reason to fear that\u200d the Justice Department\u2019s current use of Section 1512(c)(2) will serve to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/ambush-trump-spox-taylor-budowich-sues-january-6-committee-and-pelosi\/\" title=\"'Ambush': Trump Spox Taylor Budowich Sues January 6 Committee -- and Pelosi\">chill political speech<\/a> and expression on the eve of one of the most consequential events in American life \u2013 the election \u200cof the next President of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>More than \u2062236 defendants have been charged with\u2062 corruptly obstructing an official proceeding\u2014the counting of 2020 Electoral College votes by a \u2064joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. The joint session was interrupted by \u200dsome six hours when protesters breached the building and\u200d rioting broke out on \u2064the Capitol grounds.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>The statute reads:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"statutory-body\">&#8220;Whoever corruptly- (1) alters, \u2062destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record,\u200c document, or other object, or attempts\u200c to do so, with the intent to impair the object&#8217;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, shall be fined under \u200dthis title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The statute was part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act approved by\u200c Congress in\u2063 the wake of accounting scandals at major corporations including \u200bEnron, WorldCom, and Tyco International. The law was intended to\u2063 prevent corporate fraud and improve\u2062 auditing and financial disclosures.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>The issues at stake involve statutory construction, the interplay of different paragraphs of a statute, the meaning of certain \u200cterms, and discerning Congress\u2019s original \u2063intent.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the\u200b District of Columbia Circuit, in a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/us\/appeals-court-upholds-dojs-novel-use-of-obstruction-law-against-jan-6-defendants-5179650\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ruling<\/a> issued April 7, muddied the waters in a fractured 1-1-1 decision that left \u2063defendants and judges\u2063 with no clear direction \u2064on the application of the evidence-tampering law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>The ruling by a \u2062three-judge Court of\u200d Appeals panel had no majority opinion, only a \u201clead\u201d opinion that was joined conditionally by one\u2063 of\u200d the other judges.<\/p>\n<p>Attorneys Marina Medvin and Theodore Cooperstein\u2014authors of the amici curiae brief\u2014suggested the uncertainty created by the Court of Appeals could lead to more weaponization of the statute.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>\u201cThe government has already taken this interpretation as license to charge \u200banything\u2062 against any defendant,\u201d Ms. Medvin and Mr. \u2064Cooperstein wrote.<\/p>\n<h2>Charges Thrown Out<\/h2>\n<p>Most of the judges in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. have sided with \u200dthe DOJ on the novel use of \u00a71512(c)(2). Judge Carl J. Nichols disagreed, throwing out the charge in two Jan. 6 cases within eight days in March 2022 and dismissing the charge \u2062in a third case three months later.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>The \u00a71512 language is meant to prevent tampering or destruction of documents and records, and not alleged attempts to derail certification\u200d of \u200dthe \u2064presidential election results, according \u2064to Judge Nichols.<\/p>\n<p>Judge Nichols ruled that federal law under \u00a71512(c) does not apply to\u200d the conduct of the defendants because the\u2063 statute was\u2062 intended by Congress to have \u200ba narrow, limited focus related to the destruction of documents. It\u2019s\u2062 part of a section of the U.S. Code titled, \u201cTampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNothing \u200din count three (or the superseding indictment generally) alleges, let alone implies, that\u200d [defendant Joseph] Fischer took some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence \u2063Congress\u2019s certification of the electoral vote,\u201d Nichols \u2062wrote in\u2063 a 10-page ruling. \u201cThe Court will therefore grant Fischer\u2019s motion to dismiss count three.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Judge Nichols threw out \u2063the same charge on March 7, 2022, in the case of Garret Miller, of Richardson, Texas. On June 7, 2022, he dismissed\u200b the count against Mr. Lang, of Newburgh, N.Y.<\/p>\n<p>According to Mr. Pattis and Mr. Metcalf, the issue at stake in the Jan. 6 cases is whether \u00a71512 \u201ccan be used to prosecute acts of \u2062violence against police\u200b officers in the context of a public demonstration that turned into a riot.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Pattis\u2063 and Mr.\u200b Metcalf described the DOJ\u2019s application of \u00a71512 in Jan. 6 cases as \u201cbreathtaking.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The petition to the Supreme Court is intended to \u201ccheck the blind ambition of federal prosecutors,\u201d the men wrote.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWithout action from this court, hundreds, if not thousands, of \u200cAmericans will face substantial prison sentences for doing no more than speaking out at a protest that\u2064 evolved into a \u2064dynamic conflict,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Lang\u2019s trial had been\u200c set to begin on Oct. 10, but Judge\u200c Nichols postponed the start date pending some indication on Mr.\u200b Lang\u2019s\u2063 Supreme Court \u200bpetition.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>Mr. Lang \u2063is charged with 13 counts (<a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.dcd.226964\/gov.uscourts.dcd.226964.36.0_1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">pdf<\/a>), including assaulting, resisting, or\u2063 impeding certain officers using a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/3-more-jan-6-defendants-ask-supreme-court-to-review-widely-charged-obstruction-felony\/\" title=\"3 Jan. 6 Defendants Seek Supreme Court Review of Obstruction Felony Charges\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/bail-fund-praised-by-kamala-harris-has-twice-freed-the-same-rioter-he-was-just-charged-again\/\" title=\"Bail Fund Praised By Kamala Harris Has Twice Freed The Same Rioter. He Was Just Charged Again.\">dangerous weapon<\/a> inflicting bodily injury<\/a>, civil \u2064disorder, and engaging in physical violence in a\u2063 restricted building or grounds with a deadly or\u200d dangerous weapon.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2> \u2064In what ways did the defendants&#8217; actions during the\u2064 Jan. 6 protests\u200c disrupt the official proceeding of counting Electoral \u200cCollege votes,\u200d according to the DOJ?<\/h2>\n<p><span>  That prohibits witness tampering and retaliation against witnesses \u2064in official proceedings. \u200bThe judge stated that applying \u2063the statute to the defendants&#8217; behavior during the Jan. 6 protests would\u2062 stretch the\u200d language\u2062 and purpose of the law beyond its intended scope.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>The DOJ, \u2062on \u200bthe other hand, has argued that the conduct \u200dof the defendants falls \u200dwithin the language of the \u2062statute. The agency contends that the \u200bprotests disrupted\u2062 an\u200d official \u200bproceeding,\u2062 namely the counting of Electoral College \u200cvotes, and that the \u200ddefendants obstructed\u200c the\u2064 process through their actions. They assert\u2064 that the statute should be interpreted broadly to encompass these types of situations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>The \u2063Supreme Court&#8217;s review \u2064of the \u2064case \u200dwill provide an opportunity to clarify the scope and application of \u200cthe evidence-t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Three additional defendants have joined a petition urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the DOJ&#8217;s unique application of an evidence-tampering law in prosecuting individuals involved in the Capitol protests on January 6, 2021. The defendants are Christopher J. Warnagiris (43), Christopher J. Carnell (21), and William Robert.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":347,"featured_media":2036620,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[543],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2036619","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-epoch-times"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2036619","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/347"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2036619"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2036619\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2036620"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2036619"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2036619"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2036619"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}