Supreme Court Overturns DOJ's Use of Key J6 Felony Court

Today's decision means Attorney General Merrick Garland and federal judges in Washington wrongfully prosecuted roughly 350 J6ers with the post-Enron felony,

JULIE KELLY JUN 28, 20241/4

In a devastating but well-deserved blow to the Department of Justice’s criminal prosecution of January 6 protesters, the U.S. Supreme Court today overturned the DOJ’s use of 18 USC 1512(c)(2), the most prevalent felony in J6 cases.

The statute, commonly referred to as “obstruction of an official proceeding,” has been applied in roughly 350 J6 cases; it also represents two of four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6-related criminal indictment of Donald Trump in Washington.

In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the “c2” subsection is tethered to the “c1” subsection that addresses tampering with a record, document, or “object.”

From the opinion: see clip

Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the dissent (!) joined by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Today’s decision means hundreds of Americans have been wrongfully prosecuted by Attorney General Merrick Garland as he insists his department is dedicated to upholding the “rule of law” and pursuing justice “without fear or favor.”

An Irreversible Black Eye for DOJ and Federal Courts in Washington

The matter originated in the case of Joseph Fischer, a Pennsylvania man who attended Trump’s speech and later went to the Capitol. According to court documents, Fischer briefly entered the building around 3:25 p.m., nearly an hour after the joint session of Congress to certify the electoral college votes had recessed. He exited about four minutes later.

In March 2021, a D.C. grand jury indicted Fischer on numerous counts including 1512(c)(2). The statute reads:

https://www.declassified.live/p/supreme-court-overturns-dojs-use

>>21104392

2/4

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.

It is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Fischer, in addition to many J6ers facing the count, asked his judge to dismiss the charge. Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by Trump, dismissed the count against Fischer and two other defendants by finding the language in the post-Enron/Arthur Anderson statute covered tampering with records or documents not interrupting a meeting of Congress. The DOJ appealed Nichols’ decision.

In December, SCOTUS granted Fischer’s petition to grant cert seeking to reverse the appellate court’s mandate. Oral arguments were held on April 16.

Nichols is the only judge to have dismissed the count; 18 district and circuit court judges in Washington refused to dismiss the count. The judges essentially enabled the Biden DOJ’s unlawful pursuit of Americans who protested Biden’s election that day.

The List of Shame:

1. Judge Beryl Howell (Obama, former chief judge)

2. Judge James Boasberg (Obama, current chief judge)

3. Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama)

4. Judge Trevor McFadden (Trump)

5. Judge John Bates (GW Bush)

6. Judge Amit Mehta (Obama)

7. Judge Dabny Friedrich (Trump)

8. Judge Royce Lamberth (Reagan)

9. Judge Richard Leon (GW Bush)

10. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton)

11. Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama)

12. Judge Timothy Kelly (Trump)

13. Judge Randolph Moss (Clinton)

14. Judge Paul Friedman (Clinton)

15. Judge Christopher Cooper (Obama)

16. D.C. Circuit Court Judge Florence Pan (Biden)—Pan wrote both appellate court decisions upholding 1512c2

17. D.C. Circuit Court Judge Justin Walker (Trump)

18. D.C. Circuit Court Judge Cornelia Pillard

https://www.declassified.live/p/supreme-court-overturns-dojs-use

>>21104411

3/4

There Goes Your Summer, Your Honor

The federal courthouse in Washington has been bracing for a flood of motions post-Fischer; a few judges have released individuals from prison in anticipation of a reversal.

Roughly 110 J6ers have been sentenced to prison on 1512(c)(2) convictions; several J6ers were held under pretrial detention for being charged with the nonviolent obstruction count alone.

But despite the law’s legal limbo over the past year, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, a Biden appointee, continued to indict J6ers on 1512(c)(2) while some judges continued to sentence those convicted to lengthy prison terms. Last month, Beryl Howell, the former chief judge who upheld the 1512(c)(2) charges for defendants in her courtroom, sentenced a Missouri man to 60 months in prison for the 1512 conviction and assault on police.

In January 2022, Howell gave the green light for her colleagues to support the DOJ’s use of the obstruction count. Here is what she said in denying a motion to dismiss filed by two J6ers:

“For over 200 years, the peaceful transition of power from one presidential administration to another has been marked with Congress's certification of the Electoral College vote; and this event has been respectfully observed by American citizens, but not on January 6, 2021. And I start with this historical fact because what happened on January 6th was a chilling new type of criminal conduct to which our criminal laws have never before had to be applied. Application of criminal laws to conduct never before seen, like what occurred on January 6, 2021, appropriately generates the kind of legal questions the defendants raise here about whether the criminal law fits the charged criminal conduct.”

The first judge to uphold the obstruction charge in J6 cases was Trump-appointee Dabny Friedrich. In 2021, she agreed that interrupting a meeting of Congress met the definition of “official proceeding” and that the statute’s broad language did not require the government to prove the conduct involved tampering with records or documents.

Ironically—or not—Friedrich is married to Matthew Friedrich, a former DOJ official who worked on the Enron Task Force alongside Andrew Weissman and current deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco. The 1512(c)(2) statute was a product of the Enron/Arthur Anderson investigation; Weissmann, as the lead prosecutor for Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the bogus Russiagate probe, pushed the DOJ to charge Trump with 1512(c)(2) while in office.

Retired judge Thomas Hogan recently warned how a SCOTUS’s reversal of 1512(c)(2) would affect the DC courthouse. Here is Hogan, who upheld the statute in J6 prosecutions, withformer DOJ official and FISAgate mastermind Mary McCord:

https://www.declassified.live/p/supreme-court-overturns-dojs-use

>>21104425

4/4

Reacting to the SCOTUS decision, Geri Perna, aunt of Matthew Perna, told me this by email:

“When Matthew was unexpectedly charged with the felony of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding—after initially facing only misdemeanors—his world collapsed. The weight of a potential lengthy prison sentence bore down on him, filling his days with insurmountable worry and anxiety. At that time, there was no glimmer of hope that this severe charge would be dropped.

Matthew has now been dead for 28 months.In the wake of his passing, the Supreme Court of the United States is finally set to rule on whether the Department of Justice wrongfully applied 1512(c)(2) in January 6 cases. As much as I am hopeful for a just ruling in favor of the January 6 defendants, I am consumed by a profound sense of loss and anger. My nephew's death was both avoidable and senseless.

I feel cheated, and if that sounds selfish, then so be it. The pain of losing Matthew under such circumstances is a burden I carry every day. I fervently hope that those responsible for wielding this charge erroneously will be held accountable in a court of law. However, I am not holding my breath.”

https://www.declassified.live/p/supreme-court-overturns-dojs-use

>>21104392

I forgot about this, Jack Smith just got fucked

>The statute, commonly referred to as “obstruction of an official proceeding,” has been applied in roughly 350 J6 cases;it also represents two of four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6-related criminal indictment of Donald Trump in Washington.

Steve Bannon: Biden's Failing Faculties Will Lead To National Security Crisis , U.S. Imperial Praetorian Guard Previews Next Emperor

14:48

https://rumble.com/embed/v51y7zt/?pub=4

>>21104538

This is funny watch with the news clips…the MSM is pretty freaked out

MSNBC Admits Spiering's Reporting On Democrat Leaders Discussing Biden's Abilities To Run For 2024

4:24

https://rumble.com/embed/v51ygrn/?pub=4

>>21104688

I think Joe and Jill dragging this out so late, only 4-1/2 months to go, he has fucked the democrats.These people are stupid

Axios said it was really Jill that loved the power of being in the WH and she wouldn't let Joe bow out.

Mike Davis: Chevron Overturning Greatly Hinders "The Dangers Of An All-Powerful Federal Government". Good Analysis by Mike

10:29

(This is a big day anons, how many times did Q mention the Supreme Court?)

https://rumble.com/embed/v51ymbl/?pub=4

Mike Davis Celebrates Supreme Court Fischer Ruling: "Win For The January 6th Defendants"

3:38

https://rumble.com/embed/v51yojl/?pub=4

OPINION ANALYSIS

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies

By Amy Howe on Jun 28, 2024 at 12:37 pm

1/3

The court ruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce on Friday.

In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.

By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.” (The legal system has been fucked for 50+ years, it needs a shock to go back actual Justice. What about the public that is persecuted by these fake agencies?)

When the Supreme Court first issued its decision in the Chevron case more than 40 years ago, the decision was not necessarily regarded as a particularly consequential one. But in the years since then, it became one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.

Although the Chevron decision – which upheld the Reagan-era Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act that eased regulation of emissions – was generally hailed by conservatives at the time, the ruling eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means. The justices had rebuffed earlier requests (including by one of the same lawyers who argued one of the cases here) to consider overruling Chevron before they agreed last year to take up a pair of challenges to a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The agency had required the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing.

The agency stopped the monitoring in 2023 because of a lack of funding. While the program was in effect, the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.

After two federal courts of appeals rebuffed challenges to the rules, two sets of commercial fishing companies came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

>>21104879

2/3

The justices took up their appeals, agreeing to address only the Chevron question in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the Relentless case but was recused from the Loper-Bright case, presumably because she had heard oral argument in the case while she was still a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.)

Chevron deference, Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies. The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”

Roberts rejected any suggestion that agencies, rather than courts, are better suited to determine what ambiguities in a federal law might mean. Even when those ambiguities involve technical or scientific questions that fall within an agency’s area of expertise, Roberts emphasized, “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions” – and courts also have the benefit of briefing from the parties and “friends of the court.”

Moreover, Roberts observed, even if courts should not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers, it can consider that interpretation when it falls within the agency’s purview, a doctrine known as Skidmore deference.

Kagan, who read a summary of her dissent from the bench, was sharply critical of the decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine. Congress often enacts regulatory laws that contain ambiguities and gaps, she observed, which agencies must then interpet. The question, as she framed it, is “[w]ho decides which of the possible readings” of those laws should prevail?

For 40 years, she stressed, the answer to that question has generally been “the agency’s,” with good reason: Agencies are more likely to have the technical and scientific expertise to make such decisions. By overruling the Chevron doctrine, she concluded, the court has created a “jolt to the legal system.”

But more broadly, Kagan rebuked her colleagues in the majority for what she characterized as a judicial power grab. She lamented that, by overruling Chevron, the court had, in “one fell swoop,” given “itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

>>21104889

3/3

Roman Martinez, who argued the case on behalf of one of the fishing companies, applauded the decision. “By ending Chevron deference,” he said in a statement, “the Court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach. Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government. This is a win for individual liberty and the Constitution,”

But Kym Meyer, the litigation director for the Southern Environmental Law Center, decried the ruling in a statement. “[T]he Supreme Court today says individual judges around the country should decide the best reading of a statute. That is a recipe for chaos, as hundreds of federal judges — who lack the expertise of agency personnel — are certain to reach inconsistent results on the meaning of federal laws as applied to complex, technical issues.”

Friday’s ruling came in one of three cases during the 2023-24 term seeking to curtail the power of federal agencies – a conservative effort sometimes dubbed the “war on the administrative state.” In October, the court heard arguments in a challenge to the constitutionality of the mechanism used to fund the consumer watchdog Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last month the court upheld the CFPB’s funding by a 7-2 vote. And on Thursday, the justices pared back the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other administrative agencies, holding that the SEC cannot continue to use in-house proceedings to impose fines in securities fraud cases.

The fishermen in both cases were represented at no cost by conservative legal groups, the Cause of Action Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, linked to funding from billionaire and longtime anti-regulation advocate Charles Koch.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

Jeff Clark Breaks Down Monumental Supreme Court Fischer RulingJeff Clark is brilliant and we define exactly what happened and why.

3:46

https://rumble.com/embed/v51yp5b/?pub=4

Clark: Chevron Deference Ruling Will Permanently Hinder The Administrative State's Ability To Exist

3:48

https://rumble.com/embed/v51yr3q/?pub=4

Paul Sperry Warns Of "Influence Operation By Clapper And The CIA" Ahead Of 2024 Election

4:46

https://rumble.com/embed/v51yttl/?pub=4

Chip Roy Files Resolution Calling on Kamala Harris to Invoke 25th Amendment

1/2

A leading House Republican filed a resolution in Congress urging Vice President Kamala Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment in the wake of President Joe Biden’s performance Thursday night in the first debate with former President Donald Trump. Even Democrats and Biden supporters described the president’s performance as poor, though few have suggested a need to invoke the 25th Amendment.

“I intend to put forth a resolution calling upon the [vice president] to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene & mobilize the principal officers of the Cabinet to declare the [president of the United States] is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote on X on Friday morning.

The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, sets up a process by which the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can notify the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, enabling the vice president to become acting president. Under the amendment, the president can submit a written declaration that no inability exists, at which time he would resume his office. Throughout the debate, Biden spoke with a raspy voice and made numerous verbal stumbles, including instances of rambling.

The resolution directly calls upon Harris to take office as acting president.

“Whereas President Joseph R. Biden has repeatedly and publicly demonstrated his inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency, including, among others, the powers and duties of the commander-in-chief: Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives calls upon Vice President Kamala D. Harris to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments in the Cabinet to declare that President Joseph R. Biden is unable to discharge the duties and powers of the office; and to transmit to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives that she will be immediately assuming the powers and duties of the office as acting president.”

25th-Amendment-Resolution-TextDownload

If Harris and the Cabinet invoked the 25th Amendment and Biden did not stop them, Harris would become acting president.

But Harris dismissed concerns about Biden’s performance in the debate.

HTTPS://WWW.DAILYSIGNAL.COM/2024/06/28/CHIP-ROY-FILES-RESOLUTION-URGING-KAMALA-HARRIS-INVOKE-25TH-AMENDMENT/

>>21105106

2/2

“A lot of people who are fans and supporters of President Biden or who are Democrats or who are just worried about the prospect of Donald Trump returning to the presidency feel like this was not a strong performance tonight from President Biden,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow told Harris. “I want to hear your assessment and how you respond to those critics.”

“Well, it was a slow start, there’s no question about that, but I thought it was a strong finish,” the vice president responded. “What we know is that when you look at the two sides of the ledger, what we had in Joe Biden is someone who wanted to have a debate based on facts, based on truth, and in Donald Trump we have what we have come to expect, which is someone who will push lies and distract from the reality of the damage he has created and continues to create in our country.”

Harris said that Biden has done “historic work” and did not mention the 25th Amendment.Yet former Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Biden failed to demonstrate that he was up to the job.“Joe Biden had one thing he had to do tonight, and he didn’t do it,”McCaskill said. “He had one thing he had to accomplish, and that was reassure America that he was up to the job at his age, and he failed at that tonight.”

Two Republican senators also suggested Biden’s performance suggested an inability to carry out his duties. “We’ve definitely entered 25th Amendment territory,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote on X. “If you think Democrats in Washington and across the country aren’t talking about the 25th Amendment right now, you’re crazy,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., wrote. “It’s not a question of whether he should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed. It’s a question of whether he can serve as president right now.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., said Biden’s debate performance will strengthen her calls for Attorney General Merrick Garland to release the tapes of Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.

“Every member of Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure we have a coherent President,” she wrote on X. “We MUST hear the Hur tapes. A lawsuit can take years. I will be calling up the vote to hold Garland in inherent contempt this morning. This is a national security issue.”

HTTPS://WWW.DAILYSIGNAL.COM/2024/06/28/CHIP-ROY-FILES-RESOLUTION-URGING-KAMALA-HARRIS-INVOKE-25TH-AMENDMENT/

Rickards: Biden Would Have Family-Appointed "Guardian" If He Didn't Occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

13:00

https://rumble.com/embed/v51yvrl/?pub=4