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.
Summarizing the hearing in Abrego Garcia where Plaintiffs are seeking an order that he be sent to the District of Maryland if released from custody on criminal case in Tennessee, and ICE takes him into ICE custody as a result.
Judge asks if DOJ has any intention to remove him to El Salvador if released into ICE custody in Tenn. DOJ attorney says removal proceedings will begin, but to a third country, not El Salvador.
DOJ attorney says he has no info on the timing of such a removal -- says "not imminent." Judge says later that timing could be important factor in how she schedules the matters currently before the Court.
Plaintiffs attorney in MD says he doesn't rep. KAG in Tenn case, but is in contact with his attorneys.
Without coming right out and saying so, Judge tells Plaintiffs attorney they need to stop the effort to have him released from USMS custody in criminal case.
Having him go into ICE custody in Tenn will likely set off a chain of events -- ending in removal to a third country that she might be unable to prevent.
Plaintiffs (KAG and family) lawyer keeps saying that is why they need emergency order from her -- and she practically hits him in the head with a hammer to make him understand that until she decides she still has jurisdiction, they aren't going to get that order from her, and they need to work to keep him in USMS custody in Tenn.
Two motions to dismiss have been filed by DOJ in her case. One is fully briefed. The second one has opposition papers due next Monday. She sets a short briefing schedule on Emergency motion but says it likely depends on outcome of Motions to Dismiss.
I'm currently writing a long substack story about Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court order yesterday afternoon staying the earlier Preliminary Injunction put in place by Judge Murphy.
Judge Murphy, in April, ordered a halt of removals to Third Countries -- a country other than the deportee's home country -- unless the DHS gave the deportee an opportunity to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture to that specific Third Country.
The Govt appealed and asked for a Stay from the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion for Stay was denied, and the appeal is still pending. DOJ then sought an appeal from the Supreme Court -- which had remained pending until yesterday.
Judge Murphy held in May that DHS had violated the Injunction in a couple of different respects -- details not important here.
But one effect of the Injunction is that 8 deportees are temporarily housed at a US military outpost in the African country of Djibouti rather than continue on to South Sudan which has agreed to accept them.
As part of the proceedings involving the violation as he found them, Judge Murphy issued a clarification of what his Injunction prohibited.
He also issued a "Remedial Order" telling DHS what its options were to fix the earlier violation.
In all the figurative handwringing and fist pounding you have read here about the Order yesterday that Kilmar Abrego Garcia not be detained in custody pending trial, did any of you know the Magistrate Judge wrote this at the very beginning of her Opinion:
The merchants of outrage porn largely do not understand the subject-matter they are so outraged about.
But their ability to spin-up outrage in the X community by giving voice here to their own outrage generates the X-$ they rake in each month.
They are about "heat" and not "light."
The Magistrate Judge knew her decision was basically a "freebie" -- Abrego-Garcia was not getting released from custody and back into the community regardless of what she decided.
I've also seen it noted by my fellow "legal analyst" and tennis expert that some outrage should apply to the fact that Magistrate's are not accountable because they are not Presidentially Appointed.
An Act of Congress created the position of "Magistrate Judge" in the Judiciary.
In addition, there is a specific statute passed by Congress that gives to Magistrate's the express authority by law to make decisions involving release and detention in federal criminal cases.
28 USC Sec. 636 -- the part of Title 28 concerning the powers of Magistrate Judges -- expressly states as follows:
(a) Each United States magistrate judge serving under this chapter shall have within the district...
(2) the power to administer oaths and affirmations, issue orders pursuant to section 3142 of title 18 concerning release or detention of persons pending trial, and take acknowledgements, affidavits, and depositions;
Again, for all our "legal analysts" who really don't understand the law, it helps to read it before voicing opinions.
Those criticizing Judge Carl Nichols and the USAID case -- NOT THE TREASURY CASE -- reflect the fact that they likely haven't read the complaint or motion for a TRO, or his order, and -- for some -- sitting a courtroom without knowing what you are watching makes you an unreliable narrator.
The complaint was filed on Feb. 6 -- Thur -- seemingly at just past 11:30 pm based on some info in the TRO notice. The complaint is 30 pages long. The TRO was filed the next morning and is 24 pages long. It was filed early enough that Judge Nichols set an in-person status hearing for 3:00 pm. on 3/7.
As of Friday afternoon, approx. 500 USAID employees were already on leave, and nearly all additional USAID employees were set to go on paid leave starting at midnight on Feb. 8 -- 9 hours after the hearing.
This is the Central Door on the West Upper Terrance, one level up from the Inaugural stage.
This door is opened for the first time at 2:33:43 by protesters who are exiting the Capitol. They had been sent down this hallway by Capitol Police inside -- at the other end of this hallway.
Not the time stamp at the top, and that the doors are closed
A few months ago, just after the Fischer decision came out, I was contacted by Lisa Eisenhart and Taylor Munchel, mother and wife of J6 defendant Eric Munchel -- the "Zip-Tie Guy" -- about coming in to assist with their defense.
Lisa and Eric were together at the Capitol, both were arrested and detained initially, and both later proceeded by way of a "stipulated bench trial" and were convicted on all counts.
🧵
Lisa was charged with only 2 felonies -- both involved Sec. 1512, and after Fischer both were dismissed while her appeal was pending. The Govt agreed to vacate her sentence and have the case come back to the district court for resentencing.
That is happening later today. Lisa was originally sentenced to 30 months back in 2023, but she was granted bail pending appeal because the Supreme Court just agreed to hear the Fischer case so the validity of her convictions was in doubt.
When the resentencing was finally set on the calendar she asked me to file a Notice of Appearance on her behalf and I did so. I did not seek to move the sentencing date as I expected doing so would have been a basis to prevent me from coming into the case. A defendant can be denied a request to change attorneys if doing so would work to prejudice the Govt or unnecessarily delay the proceedings.