In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Song Filing  II Video Podcast
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

FEDERAL COURT, Sept 8 -- Months after the DC Circuit's decisions in US v. Munchel and more recently Tanios, on September 8 DDC Judge Amit P. Mehta held a lengthy proceeding in the Oath Keepers cases before him, on the Constitutionality of charges and the bias of the DC jury pool. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here:

Defense lawyer says Shouting in Congress, that's what we do. It's not obstruction of Congress for purposes of the statute, or Poindexter, or 1502.

Judge Mehta: You cannot compare standing up in a Committee Room and what these defendants are being accused of, at least in terms of state of mind.

Defense: What about interrupting confirmation hearings? Judge Mehta: They weren't charged with obstruction.

Judge Mehta: Ms Hernandez, it's better not to interrupt me when I'm trying to move on. Tell me why the plain text of the statute, 1512, doesn't reach this conduct: corruptly obstructs or impedes any proceeding?

Hernandez: During confirmation of Justice Kavenaugh- Now Hernandez quotes Justice Ginzberg that it is not the court's job to fill in or expand what Congress did (in that instance, a spoliation statute).

Judge Mehta: What about 1512(c)(2) - isn't that a catch all provision? Hernandez: That's what the government says.

Judge Mehta, to AUSA: So is a person stands up in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing and says, Stop the proceeding - is that a 20 year felony? AUSA: Likely not.

Judge Mehta: Let's not pretend this was simple parading. Hernandez: Some acted illegally. My client did not assault anyone. Judge Mehta: Isn't this a jury question? Hernandez: The statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Hernandez: Maybe some were jerks. Judge Mehta: Let's move to Count 4, remaining in a restricted or protected area. Why is Judge McFadden wrong? Defense: It creates chaos, anyone could do the protecting. It should be limited to a Secret Service protectee

 Defense: Mr. Caldwell never entered the Capitol building. Judge Mehta: He was on the balcony. Isn't that like the rotunda? Defense: No. Judge Mehta: There's a map associated with the statute. D: Mr. Caldwell and the VP were never contemporaneously on the grounds

Lawyer for Joshua James: We have a right to know which session of the grand jury, under the Arthur Anderson case. Judge Mehta: What does it matter, which particular grand jury that's been empaneled over these many months, was alleged impeded by Mr. James?

 Defense: We want to change venue. There is so much prejudice against these defendants -- Judge Mehta: How do you know that? Defense: This city is anti Donald Trump.

Judge Mehta: Do you have any polling data? Defense: My client doesn't have the thirty or forty thousand dollars lying around to do polling. Judge Mehta: You are arguing that DC residents are repulsed by traditional American values. Don't we here have American values? This brief reads like a blog.

Judge Mehta: Casting aspersion against people who live in this District is not the way to go. This brief looks like it's been ripped out of blog posts. It's not going to fly. Case law requires more. 

Defense: I'm not trying to denigrate the citizens of DC. Defense: My client and these defendants have been subject to race baiting day after day. He's not a racist. But everyday the Washington Post and the Attorney General and the President call him a white supremacist.

 Judge Mehta: I'm not condoning that either. We ought not to be characterizing people in large groups. I expect any jury selected would do the same. Hernandez: I'd like to file more.

Judge Mehta: Meet the deadline. Sometimes you don't. I would like more from DOJ

 AUSA: We'd like three weeks. Judge Mehta: I'll give you two, to the 22nd. Any defense reply by October 6. I'm already 15 minutes late to a meeting. Let's convene next Thursday at 11. Can we bring the detainees to court? They are reducing from five rooms to two.

 Judge Mehta: Mr. McMann is out of the country but co-counsel Mr. Spina can make it. See you all on the 16th at 11 am. Adjourned.

On Kenneth Harrelson on August 5, Inner City Press filed a letter and motion with Judge Mehta, on its DocumentCloud here.

On August 16, this: "Judge Mehta is in receipt of your email requesting access to the videos filed in United States v. Harrelson, No. 21-cr-28-10.  Under Standing Order No. 21-28, in order for the court to grant Inner City Press access to the videos filed in Mr. Harrelson’s case, you will need to file an application for access pursuant to D.D.C. Local Criminal Rule 57.6."

That rule provides: "Any news organization or other interested person, other than a party or a subpoenaed witness, who seeks relief relating to any aspect of proceedings in a criminal case... shall file an application for such relief with the Court. The application shall include a statement of the applicant's interest in the matter as to which relief is sought, a statement of facts, and a specific prayer for relief."

So, citing the Rule, Inner City Press filed another letter, one page, docketed here

Podcast here.  And Podcast II of August 19 here.

Now on August 19, it's been granted (shouldn't have been necessary): "MINUTE ORDER as to KENNETH HARRELSON (10) granting Inner City Press's 343 Application for Access to Video Exhibits. The United States shall make available to Inner City Press the video exhibits entered into evidence during the detention hearing of KENNETH HARRELSON (10), consistent with the procedures set forth in Standing Order 21-28. Inner City Press is granted permission to record, copy, download, retransmit, and otherwise further publish these video exhibits. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/19/2021."

So now, immediately, put on Inner City Press' YouTube, video here

Similarly, Inner City Press asked DOJ and then Judge Timothy Kelly for access to the videos that DOJ had shown to the court in the case: judicial documents that, under case law, must be made available to the public. But it was denied access, on the theory that Judge Kelly's order earlier in the month limited access to these judicial documents to a particular sub-set of the public.

 Inner City Press on July 27 wrote to Judge Kelly, including in the form of a motion, now on DocumentCloud, here. By noon the next day, July 28, nothing - no responses, no response. We'll have more on this. For now, podcast here; music video here.

Inner City Press live tweeted Riley June Williams on January 25, here. 

  From January 22, song here: Thread here.

 Inner City Press' John Earle Sullivan song on SoundCloud here. 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com