Always trying to raise money to fund my efforts on behalf of J6 clients. Many of you are probably suffering from a bit of fatigue in that regard, and for that I apologize in advance. But I have two cases coming up for trial after the holidays -- clients who have no resources. 1/
Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't even describe them. I'm not going to publicly identify them here -- not without getting their permission first. But one was a modest wage earner prior to his arrest. Since his arrest he's been unable to find a job. 2/
The names of J6 defendants are wide spread through a variety of online sites. Some who weren't employed or who lost their jobs in the aftermath of being charged, finding employment is a real struggle unless they posses in-demand job skills. 3/
One client -- living in an area of a friendly state -- has had no luck finding AND KEEPING steady employment for more than a year. He had a court appointed attorney but he never developed a good working relationship with that attorney. 4/
He saw my name online as representing a lot of J6 defendants and gave me a call. He started out telling me he had no money or resources to draw upon. His day to day living expenses are paid by his mother, who he lives with even though he's in his 30s. 5/
He moved back in with her after he lost his job and was unable to find work--even as a laborer. I met with him in a city not far from where he lived when I happened to be there on another case. I told him after 5 minutes I was going to take his case and he started to cry. 6/
I said we'd figure out the money thing as we went ahead -- once you have 25 clients, what's one more?
I didn't start taking J6 cases 6000 miles away from where I live in order to get wealthy - if that was my plan it was a pretty idiotic plan.
But that's where I find myself. 7/
It was 10 months after J6 before I even got involved at all. It never crossed my mind that I should be representing clients in cases on the East Coast like I might if I -- you know -- lived on the East Coast.
And then when I did it was sort of in a sideways fashion. 8/
It was another two months before just "helping behind the scenes" turned into making court appearances a year ago.
Now I meet lawyers on J6 cases and ask "How many J6 clients do you have?" They say "3" or "4" -- and they live here -- and it makes me question my sanity. 9/
The work that continues week after week, with no other regular source of compensation for me -- I have bills to pay too -- has me coming back here more often that I like. This was NEVER the play for trying to make this work. "Plan A" got tossed out the window after 3 months. 10/
I've told the story to some, and all the clients know. But I'm not going to air it here in public. So this is "Plan R" because I never ever thought I'd need to go beyond Plan A.
The only alternative is to simply ask permission to withdraw and go back to working in Hawaii. 11/
I have spent nearly 50 nights in hotel rooms since July. I'm now in my 18th night in a basement apartment that has been provided to me by a very gracious host who is dedicated to J6 defendants having competent legal counsel. 12/
But the availability here is limited -- he's offered it for any night he doesn't already have guests scheduled. I'm relocating after the holidays to another apartment but that one I'm having to rent the entire month of Jan. 13/
I'm long past the point in my career when I expected to become a wealthy trial lawyer.
I started with my first US Attorney's Office in 1992, with the plan to stay 5 years, get some federal court trial experience, and head off to a lucrative partnership in some big law firm. 14/
Nearly 23 years later I "retired" from my second US Attorneys' office. I wasn't attracted to the idea of big firm politics and genuflecting to wealthy clients who can be idiots. I decided to just go out on my own and do mostly what I knew -- federal criminal defense. 15/
What I came to realize before too long was that during my entire time as a federal prosecutor, my professional was spent with federal agents, other federal employees, other prosecutors, and defense attorneys. My only real contact with defendants was when they cooperated. 16/
But cooperating defendants have had the pressure relieved--they know what the outcome of their case is going to be. Everything they do from that point is in an effort to please the agent or prosecutor on their case because that is how they will realize the benefit promised. 17/
Among the first things I realized as a defense attorney is the crushing mental and emotional strain clients are under while their cases are unresolved.
And its not just the defendant--it is their entire family. The toll on parents, spouses, and children is unimaginable. 18/
And that creates an enormous amount of guilt in the mind of the client because they feel they are the cause of all that suffering by others.
The next thing I came to realize for the first time -- I'm the only voice saying "We'll get thru this. You're not alone." 19/
The defense attorney is the source not only of support with regard to understanding the evidence and legal proceedings in the case, but also a source of emotional support that gives the client the ability to face the turmoil that has engulfed every part of his or her life. 20/
I spend hours on the phone with clients/spouses simply trying to get them past those low moments when they feel hopeless and that all is lost. It's very hard in criminal cases to charge clients for that kind of time--for the most part I know they don't have the means to pay. 21/
And at the same time I don't want to discourage those calls because having a confident client makes my job so much easier. They remain engaged and active in helping me prepare their case for whatever path to disposition we choose. 22/
Once you are that "invested" in cases with real humans as clients, and they come along with families who are also living through the uncertainty, there just isn't any "walking away" over money. 23/.
I think that line probably makes my wife frown.
Then I get in a federal courtroom and I look across at the other side like I am right now. I see 5 prosecutors who each will, at some point in time, have some role to play in the trial. I see a supervisor sitting in the first row. I see two paralegals providing support. 24/
I know that 6 or 8 or 10 FBI agents will appear during the trial to assist or testify, fronting a massive bureaucracy behind the case.
Twitter is not letting me add a 26th tweet. 25 must be the limit. So I'm going to finish in a separate Tweet string.
So @julie_kelly2 wants to continue to attack me while having me blocked -- I don't have her blocked -- but X now allows me to see her attacks and screen shot them -- so, here is a comment from yesterday that I will now use to show you why she is such an unreliable source on these kinds of issues below:
This report from the Washington Examiner is based on a letter released by Jim Jordan yesterday to the DOJ head of the "Office of Professional Responsibility" -- OPR. OPR is the internal office in DOJ that conducts investigations of attorney misconduct.
The letter concerns information provided to the Judiciay Committee with regard to its oversight responsibilities with regard to DOJ, including Jack Smith's Special Counsel Office.
Julie claims that the information about Smith's Office being the subject of an OPR investigation is not anything new as I suggest -- and that she is pointing out an error made by me in my post where I made a "GUESS" about what Jordan's letter is referring to.
What this shows is 1) how little Julie understands the subjects she covers, and 2) how bad a report4er she really is. Let's look at some passages from Jordan's letter which Julie might not have actually read even though there was a link to it in the WashExam story. Here is the link:
The second paragraph on the first page references a May 6, 2024, letter from the Comm to OPR requesting documents and information on 3 matters that OPR had disclosed to the Comm it was investigating with regard to Smith's SCO.
On Aug. 2 the Comm wrote a second letter to OPR asking for documents and information about another investigation into a member of the Smith SCO involving alleged prosecutorial misconduct in a prior prosecution before the Smith SCO being created.
Because the Comm did not get the materials requested, on Sept. 12 it sent another letter asking for a transcribed interview of the OPR representative so the Comm could obtain information necessary to its oversight duties.
And the Jake Lang Grift goes into HYPERDRIVE: Sept. 5 -- the "J6 Awards Gala".
The invitation says FPOTUS Trump is "invited" to Speak. Same for Guliani.
Table for 12 only cots you $30,000.00
VIP Single Ticket -- $2500.00
Platinum Table -- $50,000.00
With those comes an opportunity to meet and have a photo taken with the "Speaker Lineup" -- doesn't say just who that will be. For bargain hunters,
General Admission tix are only $1500.00.
At the bottom the small print says all proceeds go to the "J6 Legal Fund".
For those new to the grift, that is Jake Lang. That is the "Fund" he set up to confuse donors who were intending to contribute to the legal defense fund supporting my work.
Only similar?? Well, the artwork was not just "similar." Lang stole copyrighted artwork from my website and used it when he set up a GiveSendGo account -- intending to confuse donors into thinking the account was linked to me.
Coincidence? It was set up the same day I obtained the first acquittal at trial of a J6 defendant charged with the felony 1512 count - obstructing Congress. Sept. 13, 2022.
Below is the artwork from my website.
Here is the artwork that Lang put on his new "J6 Legal Fund" give send go account the same day as the acquittal of Dave Mehaffie -- not where it says "" -- that's Jake Lang's website.
But this artwork was on a GiveSendGo account. Lang admitted to one of my clients that he did this to confuse donors and rip me off.J6legal.org
And now he he wants to have a "GALA" where suckers send him tens of thousands of more dollars. Wake up!!!! He thinks you are all suckers and he's laughing at you.
Jake Lang is not shy about promoting himself and his carnival barker hucksterism that has so many of you acting stupid. Why does Jake's name not appear anywhere on the "Invitation" to the "J6 Awards Gala"? He wasn't shy when he lied here -- the Supreme Court did take "his" case. He and his legal team didn't aruge the case -- they didn't have anything to do with the Fischer case that was eventually the vehicle for reversing DOJ's use of 1512. But this is just typical of Lang -- anything to suck money out of the pockets of people willing to be his sucker
If you are a J6 originally charged with misdemeanors but you lawyer told you he could get you acquitted …
You probably got bad advice.
If your lawyer said “Let’s drop the case down to the magistrate for trial to avoid the district judge we don’t like….
You probably got bad advice.
If the Govt then superseded and added felony charges to your misdemeanors when you opted for trial, and your lawyer said “That’s an unconstitutional retaliation for you exerting your right to trial - I’ll get them dismissed!!!”…
let me now give everyone some info on how this started last week after her outrage-porn post about the FBI being prepared to shoot and kill FPOTUS and his family if necessary -- here was my first message to her. My attempt to HELP her understand the context was joined by Kyle Seraphin, Steve Friend, and Garret O'Boyle. We all told her essentially the same thing. This was BEFORE I posed anything for the public on X.
Again -- I said the approach contemplated by DOJ is legally illiterate, but it is not going to stop them from trying.
The adovcate one side of the dispute. There are certain circumstances in some cases where consecutive sentencing is appropriate. I do not think these cases fit.
If SCOTUS throws out 1512 that means DOJ has been wrong from Day 1 and all the Judges but 1 have also been wrong.
The Brock decision told all the Judges but 1 they were wrong on the 1512 enhancements.
That is how the appeals process is supposed to function.
And when DOJ and the lower court have been told they've erred, their response is not supposed to end up with a work-around that gets them back to the same place that their errors took them.