Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 Profile picture
Mar 5, 2022 22 tweets 5 min read Read on X
Update on Jan6 Defendant Being Held Illegally. 3/5/22

@shipwreckedcrew filed another motion:
"DEFENDANT LUCAS DENNEY’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM CUSTODY" asserting a violation of the statutory requirement to indict in 30 days that I explained./1
He lays out the statutes, 18 USC 1361 & 1362, and applies them to Denney's facts: he was arrested on Dec 13, 2021 & is still not indicted yet as of today, March 5, 2022 - 82 days later. So case MUST be dismissed.

Link to filing here: drive.google.com/file/d/1b4tyRV…

/2
Before folks say, I agree his math on the 30 days (or 40 if 10 days are excluded for "reasonable" time for transport from TX to DC) is wrong. Looks like he went from the date of the detention hearing instead of arrest. He filed an errata to fix it. Link
drive.google.com/file/d/128tE3F… /3
Ship asks to postpone figuring out whether the case is going to be dismissed with or w/out prejudice in favor of releasing Denney right now & dealing with the legal niceties later. Unusual approach, but it's also unusual to not get indicted w/in the statutory requirement./4
"Mr. Denney urges this Court to Order the immediate dismissal of this matter, and his release from custody FORTHWITH.
Dismissal is mandatory. Whether that dismissal is to be entered with or without prejudice is a matter that can be reserved for another day." /5
"The matter of Mr. Lucas’s liberty cannot and should not wait for another day."

100% correct. Being detained illegally is anathema to our American principles.

/6
"The Government is in violation of § 3161(b). The remedy is not a matter of discretion and there is no “cure” the Government can seek to apply. The complaint must be dismissed.
See, United States v. Hinch, 308 F.Supp.2nd,599, 602 (D.Md. 2004)."

/7
Basically, that's legal lingo for "They got nothing to say."

Nice conclusion:

"Each day Mr. Denney remains in custodial detention is an additional day that his liberty rights are denied without due process in violation his rights under The Fifth Amendment. . . ."

/8
"Mr. Denney should not be made sit in a jail cell even a single day longer while the Government tries to explain away its failure to comply with the law."

Pleading is short, sweet, & to the point: Denney MUST be released & the case dismissed.

/9
Ship filed this as an emergency motion. Not sure what the court will do, if anything, between now & Monday to be honest tho. In theory a judge is available at all times. Still hard to get heard as a practical matter on weekends. An illegal detention certainly warrants the ask./10
The magistrate who's already hearing the case on Monday will have gotten the pleading too, however, & could order an immediate phone hearing perhaps. I once had a judge issue an order for the parties to draft & file a pleading by a 4 hour deadline on a Sunday during a trial. /11
Making the absence-of-an-indictment argument definitely turns up the heat, & as I told you guys on Thursday & Ship tells the court in this pleading, there is no way for the govt to do anything to fix it at this point. The dismissal is require. /12
That doesn't mean the Govt can't re-charge him, IF the court dismisses w/o prejudice but it does mean he'll be released & he will get credit for the time that he was detained for all purposes if he is re-arrested. Plus, it's a bad look if the Govt tries to detain him again. /13
Once Denney is released, it needs to be seriously looked at as to how this happened. Ship should ask the court to make a referral to the Marshall's service at least to explain the absurd 46 day transport. I may write some letters to various offices about it. It's outrageous. /14
If you started with this thread and you want to go back to where the whole thing started last week, here's the link of where to start:

Update Morning of March 7

A new order popped up on the docket this morning. It is dated March 5 (Friday), but it was not on the docket last night when I looked at it last & that was late.
The DC magistrate is now apparently engaged. 😃He ordered the Defendant to appear IN PERSON. (These hearings are being held virtually these days.) That's a good sign that the release is coming.
He also ordered: "The Court further ORDERS the United States to prepare to explain the delay in scheduling the Defendants appearance after his arrival to the District on or about January 31, 2022."

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.
I don't think the courts are going to like the answers that they are going to get (if the prosecutors are honest about what happened, which so far they haven't really been.)
"Well, judge, we thought we could just schedule a second "Initial Appearance" and just start the whole constitutional timelines thing running again."

The Judge:
Per @shipwreckedcrew, the defendant, Denney, is not at a very nearby facility. He's at one a few hours away. I wonder if the magistrate knows that. It will be interesting to see if he actually appears in person.
Further thread on what happened at the hearing on March 7, 2022.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @McAdooGordon

Jul 8
So you understand:

1. No tax money goes to Planned Parenthood for abortions directly. That has been prohibited by law for many years.

2. Congress does not “fund” Planned Parenthood directly for the other services it provides either.

3. Rather, Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid payments for non-abortion services rendered to people who are on Medicaid, just like other medical care providers.

4. Planned Parenthood in addition to abortions provides the following services:

birth control, STD testing and treatment, pregnancy testing and options counseling, emergency contraception, “gender-affirming” care, Pap tests, breast exams, and vaccinations.

5. The “funding” cut off by the OBBB are these payments thru Medicaid.

So the issue in the litigation is going to be whether Congress can constitutionally cut Planned Parenthood out of the Medicaid Program in the way that the OBBB does it.
The same kind of problem would arise if a different Congress passed a law saying religious medical providers who are in the Medicaid program could not receive Medicaid payments for medical services they provide because they also provide religious instruction or counseling to their patients.
Medicaid is an entitlement program created by the Congress. The payments it makes are not like grants or other forms of federal funding, which the Congress controls directly.

When Congress spends money on something that is available to the public generally as an entitlement, you run into the questions of whether it can then cut some people out, which can turn on the reason for the cut, because the Constitution prevents the Congress from making laws that violate certain rights, including religion and viewpoint.

So there’s a genuine issue in this Planned Parenthood case. But it requires a lot more analysis than the Mass. district judge has given it.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 19
DHS needs to circulate a memo to all state governments to make all their state officials & judges aware that ICE officers DO NOT need a “judicial” warrant to arrest immigrants in a public place. An immigration warrant issued by ICE is all that is required under federal law.
If state officials interfere with arrests based on those warrants, they are unlawfully interfering with federally agents under 18 USC 111. If they do so with “physical contact” with the agent, it’s a felony.

(These non-judicial warrants don’t permit entry into a home.)
So, for example, in the Brad Lander situation, he’s wrong that the agents have to show a judicial warrant to make the arrest; & holding on to the arrestee to prevent the agents from making it is a federal offense, at least a misdemeanor.
Read 13 tweets
Mar 19
I don’t know who needs to be reminded of this (cough, cough), but you are not bound to obey an unlawful order. And it’s not contemptuous to refuse to obey an unlawful order either.
You run the risk that you’re wrong, of course, & that a higher court will therefore say you ARE in violation of a lawful order & impose consequences.

But, it’s still true that you don’t have to obey an order that is unlawful while the courts take their time figuring it out.
To clarify, I’m talking about orders that are unlawful because the court doesn’t have the authority to issue them, not unlawful because the court ruled the wrong way.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 21
This was the only just outcome. These people were ALL over-charged, over-prosecuted, had unconstitutional conditions imposed on them when released pre-trial, had the most draconian & unlawful pleas imposed on them, & were over-sentenced.
Not even the cases where there was bad behavior by defendants were handled appropriately so as to justify the punishments handed out.
Just as electing Trump was the only way to counteract the lawfare by Democrats, pardoning & releasing all these defendants was the only way to set right the completely disproportionate & inappropriate response of the “justice system” to Jan 6.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 10
DJT has appeared at the sentencing with Todd Blanche, seated in front of an American flag.

Per CNN
Bragg’s office has asked for the unconditional discharge sentence.
Now the prosecutor is doing what they always do - whining about how a defendant who went to trial because he thinks he’s not guilty hasn’t shown remorse after being convicted by a jury. 🙄
Read 18 tweets
Jan 9
So you know. I would never counsel a client to not show up for a court hearing, especially a sentencing.

However, as I said last night on Spaces, if it were me - if I were the client- in this situation, I would absolutely not attend the sentencing hearing tomorrow.
I would instead have my lawyer put out a statement explaining that I view the hearing as ultra vires so I’m not attending.
The lawyers themselves are another matter. They must attend a duly scheduled court session or risk being found in contempt & being referred to Bar Counsel for discipline.

So I’d expect DJT’s lawyers at least to show.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(