Supreme Court Petition Filed That Could Impact ‘Hundreds’ of J6 Cases

Supreme Court Petition Filed That Could Impact ‘Hundreds’ of J6 Cases

The legal filing argues that the court should review the case “to rein in prosecutors” who are misapplying federal statutes

BECKER NEWS

The Supreme Court of the United States is considering a petition from a January 6 defendant that has the chance to affect hundreds, if not thousands of cases.

The petition for writ of certiorari, a type of appeal to the Supreme Court to review a lower court case, has been filed by a J6 defendant named Edward Lang. Lang contends that he attended the protest at the Capitol grounds on January 6 and was swept up into a riot, where he was compelled to defend himself from violence. In the course of the rioting, he assaulted a police officer, as he contends, to defend himself from harm.

As the petition states, the SCOTUS’ decision “will influence scores, if not hundreds, of prosecutions arising from the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.” The legal filing argues that the court should review the case “to rein in prosecutors” who are misapplying federal statutes in a “potentially dangerous manner.”

“Individuals appearing at protests to petition for the redress of grievances may likely now feel chilled to exercise core First Amendment rights,” the writ contends. “If the protest turns violent, will they, too, be swept in events and charged with acting in a corrupt manner?”

Norman Pattis, Lang’s attorney, criticized the government’s handling of the January 6 cases, characterizing their misuse and abuse of the federal penal code as ‘shocking.’

“Without action from this Court, hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans will face substantial prison sentences for doing no more than speaking out at a protest that evolved into a dynamic conflict,” the petitioners argue. “It is no overstatement to say the future of the First Amendment hangs in the balance.”

Prior to his trial, Lang had filed a motion to dismiss the obstruction charge, which carries a 20-year prison sentence. The D.C. District court initially granted the motion, but the decision was overturned by an appeals court. A subsequent motion for a rehearing was denied.

The appeal is based on Fifth Amendment grounds, holding that, “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Lang has been in custody for over 900 days without a trial.

He suggested that his appeal could also impact the Justice Department’s potential obstruction charges against former President Donald Trump. Lang emphasized the timing of his filing, as Trump is currently a leading figure within the Republican Party. While other charges against Trump might be resolved through a plea deal, a conviction on the obstruction of Congress charge could have serious consequences for him.

At the heart of the case is the alleged misapplication of 18 U.S. Code 1512 (c)(2), which regards to the obstruction of official proceedings, particularly with a “corrupt purpose.” Prosecutors have argued that the “corrupt purpose” is rioting, purportedly at the behest of former President Donald Trump, with the aim of the president unlawfully retaining power by halting the Electoral College proceedings.

As the legal writ points out, there has been no plausible explanation given by prosecutors about how rioters temporarily obstructing the Electoral College vote count would lead to Donald Trump retaining his office. (Furthermore, the Electoral College session was originally interrupted by the pipe bomb threats at the RNC and DNC headquarters.)

Lang allegedly fought against police officers in the Capitol for more than two hours, repeatedly striking officers with a bat and brandishing a stolen police shield. His 13-count indictment alleged that he assaulted six Metropolitan Police Officers, caused bodily injury to one of them, and engaged in disorderly conduct and physical violence with a bat and shield in a restricted area of the Capitol.

Lang’s motion to dismiss the obstruction charge under was initially granted by the District Court, but the government appealed the decision and the Appellate Court sided with the government in a split decision. A motion for rehearing was denied, and the mandate was stayed only for the obstruction count. Lang is scheduled to go to trial in the fall on related counts.

The key issue in Lang’s petition is whether the indictment’s reliance on the obstruction of official proceedings charge violates the prohibition against an overly broad application of a statute. It is argued that the government’s use of this statute in the January 6 riot prosecutions represents a significant expansion of its scope, which goes against previous interpretations of the law. This broad interpretation has been criticized as politically motivated and a misuse of the penal code.

The charges against Lang include assaults on certain officers under 18 U.S.C. Section 111(a)(1), as well as misdemeanor charges for entering Capitol Grounds and engaging in disorderly and disruptive conduct. These charges carry lesser penalties compared to the obstruction charge.

In summary, the government’s decision to charge Lang under the obstruction of official proceedings charge is argued as an example of prosecutorial overreach. Concerns are raised about the chilling effect on public demonstration and free speech, as well as the broader implications for democracy in America.

“In the District of Columbia prosecutors are now enabled to prosecute anyone who attends at a public demonstration gone awry; the result will be to create fear in those who would otherwise feel free to petition for redress of grievances, assemble in public places, and speak out about public affairs,” the legal filing states.

“It is that regime, and not a few hours’ disturbance at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, that is the more grave threat to democracy in America.”

*********

(TLB) published this article from Becker News as compiled and written by Kyle Becker

About Kyle Becker

Kyle is Becker News CEO. Former Writer & Associate Producer at Fox News for #1 top-rated prime-time cable news show. Former Director of Viral Media and Senior Managing Editor for award-winning startup website IJReview, which grew to a readership of 20-30 million Americans a month. Led editorial and social media team that was #1 ranked news & politics publisher on Facebook. Writer whose thousands of digital articles have been read by over 100 million unique users.

Header featured image (edited) credit: Supreme Court bld/org. BN article

Emphasis added by (TLB)

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.