Supreme Court is prepared to blow up hundreds of J6 sentences over cooked up Enron obstruction felony
A Huge Number of Biden’s Jan 6 Prosecutions Could Fall Apart THIS MONTH, Here’s Why…
The United States Supreme Court is set to decide Fisher v. United States, a case in which January 6 Capitol riot defendant Joseph W. Fisher is challenging a federal felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding. Justices heard oral arguments in the case in mid-April, and are likely to rule by the end of June.Joe Biden‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) has used the felony charge against over 300 individuals who allegedly participated in the 2021 riot in Washington, D.C. Additionally, the obstruction charge forms the core of DOJ special counsel Jack Smith‘s January 6 prosecution against former President Donald Trump.Fisher and his attorneys contend the obstruction felony — a provision enacted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal — represents an abusive application of what was supposed to be a statute addressing document destruction in the course of committing a financial crime. U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols ruled in Fisher’s favor in March 2022, dismissing the obstruction charge against three of the January 6 defendants. But the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Nichols’s ruling in a 2-1 decision in April 2023 — setting up the showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
SARBANES-OXLEY.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted after the 2001 Enron financial accounting fraud scandal, which saw the Texas-headquartered energy firm abruptly declare bankruptcy and dissolve its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP. Congress swiftly moved to address gaps in financial regulations, which they believed allowed Enron executives to perpetrate fraud.Sarbanes-Oxley passed in June 2002 and contained 11 financial reporting provisions aimed at the board of directors for U.S.-based companies.. Additionally, the bill enacted enhanced charges for private corporations accused of destroying documents to obstruct a federal investigation. The statute, found in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), reads:“Whoever corruptly—(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’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 this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”This provision is what Biden’s DOJ used to file enhanced felony charges against the January 6 defendants and former President Trump after congressional proceedings were delayed for a few hours on January 6, 2021.
SCOTUS SHOWDOWN.
April’s oral arguments saw the Supreme Court‘s six originalist justices probe the Biden government over the broad application of Sarbanes-Oxley’s obstruction provision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged the DOJ on why the obstruction charges were needed, pointing out that Fisher faced six other charges for his actions on January 6, 2021 — including assaulting a U.S. Capitol Police officer.“Why aren’t those six counts good enough?” Kavanaugh asked the Biden government attorneys, while Justice Clarence Thomas inquired if the Sarbanes-Oxley provision had ever been used in a case prior to the January 6 trials to prosecute “violent protesters.”Even Justice Elena Kagan — one of the court’s more liberal members — appeared to agree with Thomas, noting the intent of Sarbanes-Oxley was to address financial crimes, not protests at the Capitol, which caused a short-term nuisance.Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden regime, stressed the unique nature of the January 6 cases.“The fundamental wrong committed by many of the rioters, including petitioner, was a deliberate attempt to stop the joint session of Congress from certifying the results of the election,” Prelogar said. She added: “That is, they obstructed Congress’ work in that official proceeding.”
read moar:
https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis-post/a-huge-number-of-bidens-jan-6-prosecutions-could-fall-apart-this-month-heres-why/