LATEST NEWS

''Judge says civil rights of Jan 6 detainees are being violated, slaps warden with contempt. ‘FINALLY!!’-''

October 13, 2021 | Sierra Marlee |

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth is holding D.C. Jail Warden Wanda Patten and D.C. Department of Correction Director Quincy Booth in contempt of court, accusing them of ‘inexcusable’ delays in providing medical treatment to prisoner Chris Worrell, who is accused of partaking in the January 6 Capitol Hill riot.

‘American Greatness’ writer Julie Kelly live-tweeted the hearing and the resulting action by the judge.

“Judge Lamberth just found the DC Jail Warden and DC DOC Director in contempt of court for refusing to turn over requested documents related to care for cancer-stricken J6 detainee,” she wrote. “Says civil rights are being violated at the jail, will refer to Attorney General office. FINALLY!!”

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/10/13/judge-says-civil-rights-of-jan-6-detainees-are-being-violated-hits-warden-with-contempt-finally-1148380/

>>14780029

>Sierra Marlee

https://twitter.com/danaparish/status/1448396226756431872

Handyman came to my house w no mask. I was in N95.

Him: Do you want me to wear a mask?? I’m fully vaxxed.

Me: Yep. You can still acquire & spread covid & any of us could get breakthrough cases.

Him: But that’s so rare!

Me: No. Not rare.

Him: But on the news, they say…

5:12 PM · Oct 13, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Replying to

@danaparish

…it’s rare.

Me: I know. But it’s not.

Him: But can you still get #Longcovid? My wife is just getting better from it from a year ago?

Me: Yes.

Him: OMG. No way. Why isn’t anyone warning us?? I’m in ppl’s houses all day w/o a mask thinking it’s safe.

@CDCDirector

• HELLO

>>14780047

>>14780064

>>14780064

>>14780064

>>14780068

>>14780079

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1448298068634394627.html

Hearing for Chris Worrell, arrested in March and detained since for offenses related to January 6. He's been in DC Gulag for months; Worrell has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and has not received proper treatment. Judge Lamberth, who denied bond for Worrell…

Capitol Investigation Seeks to Criminalize Political Dissent

In the early hours of March 12, FBI agents in southwestern Florida barricaded a neighborhood to prepare to raid the home of one resident. Christopher Worrell of Cape Coral was arrested and charged…

https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/15/capitol-investigation-seeks-to-criminalize-political-dissent/

earlier this month ordered jail officials to provide medical records on Worrell. They did not comply in time. Lamberth hauled them into court this morning to show cause why they shouldn't be held in contempt.

Lamberth starts by blasting DC DOC for limiting virtual hearing rooms, cut from 4 to 2. "DOC refused to cooperate." Now talking about "incompetence" by DC jail on COVID testing. Worrell is not in the courtroom. His lawyer spoke with Worrell early this morning.

Officials include DC Jail Warden Wanda Patten and DC DOC Director Quincy Booth. DOJ atty defending jail officials claims its a miscommunication. Lamberth says he was satisfied in September Worrell was getting cancer treatment, was then "dumbfounded" that wasn't the case.

Worrell hand was broken in May. Orthopedic surgeon recommended in June that Worrell needed surgery. Lamberth says he thought Worrell and others should be moved from DC jail for lack of care. Responsibility of US Marshall but Marshall said he didn't get notes from jail, DOJ

Lamberth demands to know where notes were, DOC official says he doesn't know why they weren't turned over as ordered. Some mumbojumbo, Lamberth claims notes only turned over after he set contempt hearing. DOC atty says there was "ambiguity" over whether Worrell needed surgery.

"I don't accept that explanation," Lamberth says. DOC atty claims they've complied and were not in contempt. They've "learned lessons," LOL.

"What happens when surgery recommended in June and never followed up? Does no one care?" - Lamberth.

NO. NO THEY DON'T CARE.

"No one noticed in the jail that he's sitting there in pain all the time?" DOC atty claims jail guards often ask detainees how they're doing. I'm laughing so hard.

Alex Savron, Worrell atty. Injury occurred May 21, if it had been attended to surgery might not have been needed.

Savron says Worrell recommended for 6 months chemo and radiation to treat his cancer. "Cruel and unusual punishment for my client." DC jail not prepared to handle those treatments, including nausea, pain, etc, Outcome could be grave injury or death.

Line just went dead for a few minutes. Reconnected.

DOC atty says Worrell has had biopsies, seen specialists who are on his "cancer team." I've heard about his deteriorating condition.

Lamberth asking for details about Worrell's cancer treatment going forward.

Doctor says it will be "intense chemotherapy regimen." Says he will be in a medical unit after treatments.

Keep in mind: THIS MAN HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. Lamberth himself has denied bail awaiting trial. No trial date set.

Treatments will be a Howard Univ.

Lamberth finds DC Jail Warden and DOC Director in contempt of court. "Inexcusable."

HOLY SH*T.

He's berating them. This is awesome

Lamberth: Civil rights have been abridged. Doesn't know if it's because he's a January 6 defendants.

DC Jail is VIOLATING CIVIL RIGHTS OF JANUARY 6 DEFENDANTS.

Will refer to Attorney General.

WOWZA.

• • •

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1448288746902802433?refresh=1634163823

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1448298068634394627

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1448288746902802433

>>14780137

>https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/15/capitol-investigation-seeks-to-criminalize-political-dissent/

https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/15/capitol-investigation-seeks-to-criminalize-political-dissent/

Capitol Investigation Seeks to Criminalize Political Dissent

The government's response to the January 6 melee isn’t about justice. It’s about partisan retribution and revenge. And the consequences will be disastrous.

By Julie Kelly

March 15, 2021

In the early hours of March 12, FBI agents in southwestern Florida barricaded a neighborhood to prepare to raid the home of one resident. Christopher Worrell of Cape Coral was arrested and charged with several counts related to the January 6 Capitol melee. Even though Worrell had been cooperating with the FBI for two months, the agency nonetheless unleashed a massive, and no doubt costly, display of force to take him into custody.

Law enforcement agents, according to one neighbor who spoke with a reporter, wore “whole outfits . . . like military and it was crazy. There was like six or seven . . . big black vehicles. They busted down the front door.” The raid included “armed men with helmets and a tanker truck” and was partially executed by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Worrell never entered the Capitol building on January 6; he isn’t accused of committing a violent crime. But a D.C. judge overturned a Florida judge’s ruling to release Worrell pending further review of his case. He remains in jail.

Ginning Up “Domestic Terrorism”

Worrell’s arrest is the latest in what the U.S. Department of Justice warned would be an “unprecedented” investigation leading to sedition charges filed against American citizens. Attorney General Merrick Garland pledged to make the Capitol Breach manhunt his top priority; on his first day in office, he received an update on the investigation from FBI Director Christopher Wray. Garland has compared January 6 to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, including 15 children.

Roughly 300 people have been arrested so far, many of them transported to Washington, D.C. to await trial and dozens denied bail after federal prosecutors argued the defendants, including a high school senior from Georgia, pose a threat to the nation.

The Capitol Breach probe, the department’s official title, is a flagrant political prosecution targeting Trump supporters. Every display—from heavy-handed FBI raids to a militarized Washington, D.C.—is designed to portray the President Trump’s allies as domestic terrorists.

The differences between how the government is handling the January 6 defendants and other so-called protestors could not be more stark. For example, a Portland investigative reporter found the Justice Department has dropped more than one-third of the federal cases related to last summer’s riots in that city, with more to come. Only about a dozen people have been arrested for last week’s rioting in Portland, which included attacks on a federal courthouse.

But the violence in Portland is different, according to Merrick Garland, who said during his confirmation hearing the Capitol attack was “domestic terrorism” because the January 6 protestors attempted “to disrupt democratic processes.” The term doesn’t apply to attacks on the Portland courthouse, Garland claimed, because those only happen at night when court is out of session.

Lucky Antifa.

Stretching the Law

Garland’s explanation, however absurd it sounds to the majority of Americans, bolsters one of the Justice Department’s most widely-used allegations in its Capitol investigation. More than 75 protestors now face one count of “obstruction of an official proceeding.”

The temporary disruption of Congress’ attempt to certify the Electoral College results, a task completed 13 hours after the chaos began, is repeatedly cited in charging documents as evidence of wrongdoing: “It [is] a crime to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding—to include a proceeding before Congress—or make an attempt to do so,” several affidavits read.

But the government’s attempt to apply this vague law to defendants in the Capitol case is a stretch, to say the least. In several instances, it represents an enhancement charge to add a felony to mostly misdemeanor offenses.

>>14780148

Further, there’s no indication the law pertains to a proceeding before Congress. Here’s the exact text from the statute prosecutors cite: “Whoever corruptly . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

The provision is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, signed into law in 2002 as a congressional response to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Corporate bad actors—not regular citizens protesting the actions of their elected officials in a public government building paid for by taxpayers—are the proper targets of that law.

In his signing statement, President George W. Bush explicitly rebuked any intention to use the law against Americans. “To ensure that no infringement on the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of grievances occurs in the enforcement of section 1512(c) . . . which among other things prohibits corruptly influencing any official proceeding, the executive branch shall construe the term ‘corruptly’ in section 1512(c)(2) as requiring proof of a criminal state of mind on the part of the defendant,” Bush said in July 2002.

>>14780152

No Speedy Trials

How will federal prosecutors convince a judge someone like Christopher Worrell, who never entered the building to try to stop Congress’s certification, had a “criminal state of mind” and wasn’t simply exercising his constitutional right to protest his own government?

What Worrell and others did—those who didn’t commit crimes such as assault a police officer or vandalize property—is wholly American and well within the protections of the First Amendment.

Perhaps that explains why thousands of protestors who occupied the Hart Senate Office building in October 2018 to interrupt the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh didn’t face “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges. Ditto for those who surrounded and banged on the doors of the Supreme Court. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was not accused of inciting an insurrection after she fired up the crowd that later stormed the Senate building and harassed U.S. senators.

Trump-hating thugs who tore up the nation’s capital during his 2017 inauguration also did not face extra charges for “obstruction of an official proceeding.” In fact, nearly all of the charges eventually were dropped by the same U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. now overseeing the Capitol riot investigation.

The burden of proof, to the extent it matters in the hyperpartisan Beltway justice system, is high. Nonetheless, it appears the Justice Department is having trouble building its cases, including “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges.

Last week, the government asked for permission to violate the Speedy Trial Act and grant a 60 day continuance in its case against nine defendants, alleged members of the Oath Keepers, all charged with obstructing an official proceeding among other offenses. The lawyers insist they need more time to assemble all the evidence. “[T]he ends of justice served by granting a request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.”

The judge agreed.

Convicting any of the Capitol defendants on charges of obstructing an official proceeding will cross a dangerous line—a line government prosecutors and federal judges clearly feel undeterred to cross. This isn’t about justice, it’s about partisan retribution and revenge. And the consequences will be disastrous.

Royce Charles Lamberth /’læmb-ərth/ (born July 16, 1943) is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who formerly served as its chief judge. Since 2015, he has sat as a visiting judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_Lamberth

Education and career

Lamberth was born in 1943 in San Antonio, Texas. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Texas, where he was a member of the Tejas Club, and from the University of Texas School of Law, receiving a Bachelor of Laws in 1967. He served as a captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps of the United States Army from 1968 to 1974, including one year in Vietnam. After that, he became an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1978, Lamberth became chief of the civil division of the United States Attorney's Office, a position he held until his appointment to the federal bench.[2]

Federal judicial service

Lamberth was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on March 19, 1987, to the seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated by Judge Barrington D. Parker. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 13, 1987, and commissioned on November 16, 1987. He served as chief judge from 2008 to 2013. He assumed senior status on July 15, 2013.[2] He also served as presiding judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from 1995 to 2002.[3][4] Since becoming a senior judge, Lamberth has been assigned as a visiting judge in San Antonio for several months per year at the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.[5]

Notable cases

Cobell v. Kempthorne

Lamberth presided over Cobell v. Kempthorne, a case in which a group of Native Americans sued the U.S. Department of the Interior for allegedly mismanaging a trust intended for their benefit.[6] Lamberth, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, was known for speaking his mind and repeatedly ruled for the Native Americans in their class-action lawsuit. His opinions condemned the government and found Interior secretaries Gale Norton and Bruce Babbitt in contempt of court for their handling of the case. The appellate court reversed Lamberth several times, including the contempt charge against Norton. After a particularly harsh opinion in 2005, in which Lamberth lambasted the Interior Department as racist, the government petitioned the Court of Appeals to remove him, alleging that he was too biased to continue with the case. On July 11, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, siding with the government, removed Judge Lamberth from the case.[citation needed]

1983 Beirut barracks bombing case

In May 2003, in a case brought by families of the two hundred forty-one servicemen who were killed in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, Lamberth ordered the Islamic Republic of Iran to pay US$2.65 billion for the actions of Hezbollah, a Shia militia group determined to be involved in the bombing in Beirut, Lebanon.[7]

Guantanamo cases

Lamberth has presided over Guantanamo captives habeas corpus petitions.[8][9]

On December 29, 2016, Lamberth ordered the preservation of the full classified United States Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.[10] The six thousand–page report had taken Intelligence Committee staff years to prepare. A six hundred–page unclassified summary was published in December 2014, when Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein chaired the committee, against objections of the Committee's Republican minority. Its publication stirred controversy. Limited copies of the classified report had been made, and human rights workers were concerned that the CIA would work to have all copies of the document destroyed.[citation needed]

>>14780230

James Rosen search warrants

In 2010, two federal magistrate judges approved a warrant sought by Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department to search personal e-mails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen related to a story about the North Korean nuclear program. In May 2010, Judge Lamberth overruled Magistrate Judge John Facciola's determination that the Justice Department needed to directly notify Rosen of the issuance of the warrant.[11] In May 2013, Lamberth issued an apology from the bench for the Clerk's Office's failure to unseal the search warrant docket entries, as Judge Lamberth himself had ordered the matter unsealed in November 2011.[12]

Sherley v. Sebelius

In August 2010, Lamberth issued a temporary injunction blocking an executive order by President Barack Obama that expanded stem cell research. He indicated the policy violated a ban on federal money being used to destroy embryos,[13] called the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.[14] Susan Jacoby complained that his decision was more a reflection of his politics than a rigorous interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.[15]

Judge Lamberth refused to lift the injunction forbidding the research pending the appeal of his ruling, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order on September 9, 2010, providing for an emergency temporary lifting of the injunction in the case that had forbidden the research, at the request of the Justice Department. A three judge panel from that court overturned Lamberth's decision in August 2012, and the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's request for an appeal.[16]

In re Kutler

In July 2011, Judge Lamberth ordered the release of Richard Nixon's testimony concerning the Watergate scandal. The Justice Department reviewed the decision after an objection from the administration insisting on the continued need for privacy of those involved.[17]

Royer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

On January 15, 2014, Judge Lamberth issued an order[18] harshly criticizing the Department of Justice for what he described as its "sneering argument" that a federal prisoner had not been prejudiced by the Department's repeated failure to comply with discovery "because he remains incarcerated."[19] Judge Lamberth went on to write that "[t]he whole point of this litigation is whether defendant can continue to single out plaintiff for special treatment as a terrorist during his continued period of incarceration. Did any supervising attorney ever read this nonsense that is being argued to this Court?"[18][19] Judge Lamberth proceeded "to grant the inmate plaintiff pretty much all his discovery motion and hammer[ed] the DOJ by telling plaintiff to submit its request for sanctions in the form of award of attorney fees and costs."[19] In response to the Order, the Justice Department moved to substitute new counsel "and remove the appearances of all prior counsel for Defendant in the above-captioned case," Assistant United States Attorneys Charlotte Abel, Laurie Weinstein, Rhonda Campbell and Rhonda Fields.[19][20] This led one legal commentator to note that "[i]t appears that the government is seeking the clerk’s assistance in fundamentally altering the record, to intentionally conceal the identities of the assistants" who had been reprimanded by Judge Lamberth.[19]

United States v. Bolton

In June 2020, Lamberth was assigned the case United States v. Bolton,[21] in which the Trump administration sued to prevent the publication of John Bolton's book The Room Where It Happened.[22] On June 20, Lamberth issued a ruling declining to enjoin the publication, but leaving the case open for other remedies.[23][24]