Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Shipwreckedcrew Profile picture
Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
22 years as fed. prosecutor; Def. Attorney for 55+ Jan 6 Defs. Donations accepted at https://t.co/7q3GPrN2Y7. Comments not legal advice.
135 subscribers
Aug 25 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
As San Francisco DA Kamala Harris Chose To Not Seek The Death Penalty Against A Cop Killer , by @shipwreckedcrew

SFPD Officer Issac Espinoza
End of Watch April 10, 2004.
Married father of a 3 year old daughter.
29 years old. Image

RPs of this are greatly appreciated as X tends to throttle posts with links to this particular website.open.substack.com/pub/shipwrecke…
Aug 22 • 4 tweets • 3 min read
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.

Me: "January 6 Legal Defense Fund"
Lang: "J6 Legal Fund"

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.Image 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.orgImage
Jun 1 • 6 tweets • 1 min read
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.
May 29 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
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.Image It went on: Image
Mar 20 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
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. These are not novel issues or novel approaches.

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.
Mar 20 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
For those kvetching over the DOJ position on possible consecutive sentences if Sec. 1512(c)(2) is thrown out by the Supreme Court, having some understanding of how this process actually plays out -- regardless of what DOJ claims it is going to ask for -- is important. The idea that "Sentence XX" is appropriate regardless of what happens with Fischer is legally illiterate -- not a first for DOJ in these cases and I've said that in writing.

The FIRST obligation of a Judge at sentencing is "Get the Guideline calculation correct."
Mar 20 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
What happened in Texas:
District Judge in Texas issued injunction.

Appeals Court issued "administrative" stay. Temporary - NOT ON THE MERITS.

Biden Admin appealed to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS said "We don't mess with Admin stays -- we'll wait for more substance from Appeals court. Appeals Court removed Admin stay -- meaning District Judge order back in effect, but sets hearing TODAY for to decide what to do next on the substance.

It might put the stay back into effect with more substance, i.e., not an "Admin Stay."
Mar 19 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
This article is crap and just an extension of your publication of crap.
Why would Trump/Meadows offer Bowser 10,000 troop for the Capitol? The Mayor doesn't protect the Capitol.
Of course it was for security on the streets of DC - that was her responsibility. There had been violent clashes between protesters and counter-protesters on Nov. 14 (Million MAGA March) and Dec. 12 (Jericho Rally). The police were outnumbered in both and had trouble controlling them. So Trump is offering her more manpower for 1/6 expecting a bigger rally.
Mar 16 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
You are simply clueless.
A (c)(3) is a "charity." That means contributions are tax deductible. With that comes scrutiny from state regulators. So (c)(3) groups must file tax data in every state. That's why they do audited financial statements -- which cost money to CPAs. That's why they have attorney expenses -- to make sure they are in compliance with IRS regulations.

That's why charities have CEOs -- who get paid because being the CEO of a charity is job.
Mar 16 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
Pres. Trump has publicly endorsed the PFP and the efforts of Cynthia Hughes. He has repeatedly welcomed her to events he has organized.
That is the imprimatur of legitimacy.
All the scammers want that so badly but they do not have it.
They attack the PFP to undermine it. The scammers are conning the public that is willing to donate money on behalf of J6 defendants and their families in order to divert donations away from those who are actually helping in meaningful ways and towards the scammers.
Mar 14 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Then the issue is whether he should have not issued the report and simply waited until after the Nov. election to see if that resolved the situation.

But the real problem was not that he'd be seen as an old man with a poor memory but that he is not able to assist in his defense. That means he's no competent to stand trial.
I think some disagree on the question of whether that was Hur's call to make, or whether Hur should have left that to a judge after hearing independent expert analysis -- that is the typical way this kind of question is resolved.
Mar 13 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
But this fails to consider the whole point of security classifications -- it is to provide a flow of sensitive information to decision-makers, with no decision-maker being more important than POTUS.

Do you really prefer a circumstance where a potential incoming POTUS -- He's ahead in the polling -- comes into office without knowing everything that is needed to make informed decisions.

My default position is that new POTUS -- whoever he/she is -- makes the rules, not the NatSec bureaucracy.

If New POTUS wants to be China's best friend...
Mar 8 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
"Ornato’s description of events also matched testimony offered by Kash Patel, the former chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense, in the Colorado Supreme Court hearing about Democrat efforts to limit the ability of Americans to vote for the candidate of their choice. The Colorado court, whose efforts to remove Trump from the ballot were so extreme they were overturned this week by a unanimous Supreme Court, claimed Patel’s “testimony regarding Trump authorizing” at least 10,000 National Guardsmen was “illogical” and
Mar 8 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Biden Admin cooking the books on job growth.
Report +275,000 jobs for Feb., way ahead of estimate of 198,000 jobs.

BUT -- revised downward jobs for Dec and Jan:

January down to 229,000 from 353,000 !!??!!??

Only overshot by 35%. Of the 275,000:
68,000 in health care
52,000 in government
42,000 in food and beverage industry.
24,000 in "social assistance"

186,000 out of 275,000.

Manufacturing didn't go up.

Work Force Participation rate remains at historic lows -- 62.5%.
Mar 3 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
She's not -- the Supreme Court has held that a defendant cannot delay a case for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage where the delay will likely cause harm to the Govt's ability to present its case -- i.e., an elderly witness who might die. @BarbMcQuade Delaying the case for tactical advantage is not allowed.

A common example -- after a case is pending for 3 years, moving to change attorneys a month before trial and then asking for a 6 month continuance for the new attorney to prepare. Usually won't be allowed.
Mar 2 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
The more I think about today's events -- the arrest, cuffing, and shackling of my client Steve Baker, and the repudiation of DOJ's drive for lengthy sentences on glorified trespassing charges three Appeals Court Judges appointed by Democrat Presidents - the more pissed off I am. I want in-person meetings with Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Comm, and Sen. Lindsay Graham Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Comm.

I do not think they understand the actual mechanics of the lawfare employed by the Biden DOJ against J6 defendants.
Mar 2 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
I don't mean to bring more pain to @GeriPerna but it was the way the Govt sought to use the +8 and +3 level enhancements to sentences for 1512 that was the the burden that her nephew Matthew could not bear.

The guilty plea negotiated by his attorney involved only the +3. On the eve of his sentencing the Gov't asked for a 2 week continuance which was agreed to.
During that two weeks the Gov't filed with the court a request to apply the +8 levels too -- something that had not been discussed when Matthew entered his guilty plea.
Mar 1 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
I hate to take this particular moment to bang my tin cup on the wall, but I have a 13 day trip to DC coming up in a week. My client Jay Kenyon is set for trial starting March 11, and I have two sentencings on March 15 and March 20. That's a cross-country airfare and 12 nights on a DC hotel in March -- Cherry Blossom season and just about the most expensive time of year to spend time in DC hotels. I'm staying farther out in Virginia than normal to find a decent rate.
Mar 1 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
HUGE decision out of DC Circuit this morning saying the proceedings before Congress on Jan. 6 did not involve the "administration of justice" as that phrase is used in the Sentencing Guidelines.

This will be moot if the SCOTUS throws out the 1512 count altogether in the Fischer. But this has been a MASSIVE point of conflict between defense counsel and the DOJ/Judges in sentencing J6 defendants on 1512 counts.

That was the "go to" felony for DOJ early on, and the reason for that is the Govt was asking for -- and getting "11" levels of enhancements.
Feb 29 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
Not wanting to get too far ahead of the facts, but a minor "victory" -- hopefully not short-lived -- for Tara Stottlemyer today.

Filed a 2255 motion yesterday to allow her to file a notice of appeal -- something not done following her sentencing on a 1512 count. At the same time filed a motion for release pending appeal.

Tara's only conviction is on the 1512 count that the Supreme Court will resolve in June. If that count is reversed, Tara would be subject to release.

But her sentence is only 8 mos -- she has been in custody 3 mos.
Feb 29 • 6 tweets • 1 min read
The question as posed by the Supreme Court allows them to answer it as a general proposition, and not specifically as to Trump and the DC case.
It can say the lower courts were wrong that rule categorically there is never immunity -- which is what they did. They can say that as a matter of separation of powers and serious public policy considerations -- same as Nixon -- a POTUS enjoys immunity for "official acts", and on that basis the lower court decisions are wrong.