Chansley's Lawyer Speaks
-
Maybe.
But whether it was exculpatory or not, that's not DOJ's call to make.
-
Film on TuCa tonight shows the Shaman walking through the hallways of the Capitol. He is nonviolent and being escorted by Capitol Police.
At points during the film, nine armed officers were within arm's reach of him.
The tape wrapped up with a video of the Shaman standing at the Senate Podium, praying for the Capitol Police.
-
@Jolly said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
Somebody needs to go to jail at DOJ.
This must not be tolerated.
McCarthy claims the video is not exculpatory. That may or may not be the case. However, I think it's at least debatable, and something for a judge to decide. The fact that it was not shown to the judge, at least is an outrage.
Secondly, Chansley pled guilty. If he did so without knowledge of the potentially exculpatory video, that's a problem...maybe.
@George-K said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
McCarthy claims the video is not exculpatory.
It is
Maybe it doesn't turn the guy into an innocent, but it goes a long way toward changing the way you might look at the events of that day.
And those events aren't anywhere as important as the lies that were told by politicians and the media and judiciary that backed them up.
-
@George-K said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
McCarthy claims the video is not exculpatory.
It is
Maybe it doesn't turn the guy into an innocent, but it goes a long way toward changing the way you might look at the events of that day.
And those events aren't anywhere as important as the lies that were told by politicians and the media and judiciary that backed them up.
@Copper said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
@George-K said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
McCarthy claims the video is not exculpatory.
It is
Maybe it doesn't turn the guy into an innocent, but it goes a long way toward changing the way you might look at the events of that day.
And those events aren't anywhere as important as the lies that were told by politicians and the media and judiciary that backed them up.
The Shaman is not innocent. But he was, by all video evidence, not violent. Evidence not available in his defense.
His sentence is draconian based upon his crime.
-
@Copper said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
@George-K said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
McCarthy claims the video is not exculpatory.
It is
Maybe it doesn't turn the guy into an innocent, but it goes a long way toward changing the way you might look at the events of that day.
And those events aren't anywhere as important as the lies that were told by politicians and the media and judiciary that backed them up.
The Shaman is not innocent. But he was, by all video evidence, not violent. Evidence not available in his defense.
His sentence is draconian based upon his crime.
@Jolly said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
not violent
A big doofuss
Who was escorted everywhere he went by two police with guns.
He was about as harmless as harmless could be. In the Senate chamber he used his megaphone to thank the police for the escort.
There were a thousand other stories that day, but anyone who follows this guy has to agree that he was nothing.
-
@George-K said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
DOJ responds:
Well, the good news is that they have the video too…
They are more than welcome to air it as well…
-
@George-K said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
DOJ responds:
Well, the good news is that they have the video too…
They are more than welcome to air it as well…
@LuFins-Dad said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
@George-K said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
DOJ responds:
Well, the good news is that they have the video too…
They are more than welcome to air it as well…
Yep.
And what if they have an hour of tape without the guy being violent?
Which I doubt, since the FBI would never lie to the American public.
-
Chansley's (first) lawyer responds to the government filing.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Government’s assertion is erroneous. In the weeks prior to the plea repeated requests were made to make sure we had all the video footage. In response, AUSA Paschall produced a number of videos, some of which were produced just prior to the plea, necessitating an in-person visit with Jake where he was confined to show him the footage prior to finalizing his decision to enter into the plea deal.
The plea deal allowed for an appeal of the sentence. Jake was specifically permitted under the plea agreement to argue for a sentence beneath the range established under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
At the same time there was genuine concern about the ability of ant J6 defendant to receive a dais [i.e., fair] trial before any jury comprised of residents of the District of Columbia.
The footage that was specific to Jake was to have been fully disclosed by the Government prior to the plea.
The timing of the footage is important as it fully debunks the Government’s often repeated assertion that Jake was a danger; leading the charge into the Capitol; inciting others; threatening others, and obstructing an official proceeding.
This footage would have been of significant value to the court during any one of the three motions I argued before the court to seek the Pretrial release of Jake during which the Government characterized Jake’s flag and pole set as a deadly weapon.
Review of the Court’s orders in response to the motions for Pretrial release it is clear the Court relied heavily on the Government’s mischaracterization of Jake as being a danger.
The plea hearing for Jake involved the careful and detailed examination of Jake under oath to ensure that he was knowingly and voluntarily entering into the plea, having been fully informed of all material evidence prior to making his decision. This was an examination that took place in the presence of the AUSA.
The Court was not aware of this footage. It was material. The Court was determined to make sure Jake’s plea was freely and voluntarily entered into.
At sentencing, the court specifically noted that if Jake had gone to trial and been found guilty he would have been sentenced to a far greater period of incarceration in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
The verdicts to date have all been swift repudiations of the arguments set forth by defendant.
At the time of his sentence, Jake received the most time. Presently, Jake is the recipient of the 30th longest sentence.
Recall, at the time of his plea, Jake had been in solitary confinement for approximately 11 months…and was enduring the mental health hardships associated with his diagnosis, rendering him fighting for his life and mental health well being.
Jake was sentenced and thereafter engaged new counsel who had the time to file a motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. He did not do so. He filed a notice of appeal but dismissed the appellate proceeding before filing a brief.
Over one year and two months following sentencing the Government’s own video footage comes to light on Tucker Carlson’s show.
This was not a function of a rogue AUSA, but rather, a function of a discovery protocol established at the highest levels of the DOJ.
Remember, the DOJ characterized Jake as the face of insurrection. The assertion that the non-disclosure of the exculpatory footage was a “whoops” moment in nothing short of unconscionable.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"In solitary confinement for 11 months."
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Chansley's (second) lawyer responds:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Government’s filing in the case now before Judge Kelly seems artfully written to avoid an affirmative statement about when and in what manner the videos in question were produced in discovery to Mr. Chansley’s prior counsel. Questions pertaining to the production of the Chansley videos played by Tucker Carlson were not before Judge Kelly. But those questions might be posed on Chansley’s behalf in other contexts where the Government could be required to produce more specific information as it relates directly to Mr. Chansley’s case. The Government’s filing suggests that it wasn’t prepared to that step just yet, only to maybe find it necessary to “walk back” something it might say now in haste for the purpose of addressing the issues before Judge Kelly.
-
Chansley's (first) lawyer responds to the government filing.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Government’s assertion is erroneous. In the weeks prior to the plea repeated requests were made to make sure we had all the video footage. In response, AUSA Paschall produced a number of videos, some of which were produced just prior to the plea, necessitating an in-person visit with Jake where he was confined to show him the footage prior to finalizing his decision to enter into the plea deal.
The plea deal allowed for an appeal of the sentence. Jake was specifically permitted under the plea agreement to argue for a sentence beneath the range established under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
At the same time there was genuine concern about the ability of ant J6 defendant to receive a dais [i.e., fair] trial before any jury comprised of residents of the District of Columbia.
The footage that was specific to Jake was to have been fully disclosed by the Government prior to the plea.
The timing of the footage is important as it fully debunks the Government’s often repeated assertion that Jake was a danger; leading the charge into the Capitol; inciting others; threatening others, and obstructing an official proceeding.
This footage would have been of significant value to the court during any one of the three motions I argued before the court to seek the Pretrial release of Jake during which the Government characterized Jake’s flag and pole set as a deadly weapon.
Review of the Court’s orders in response to the motions for Pretrial release it is clear the Court relied heavily on the Government’s mischaracterization of Jake as being a danger.
The plea hearing for Jake involved the careful and detailed examination of Jake under oath to ensure that he was knowingly and voluntarily entering into the plea, having been fully informed of all material evidence prior to making his decision. This was an examination that took place in the presence of the AUSA.
The Court was not aware of this footage. It was material. The Court was determined to make sure Jake’s plea was freely and voluntarily entered into.
At sentencing, the court specifically noted that if Jake had gone to trial and been found guilty he would have been sentenced to a far greater period of incarceration in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
The verdicts to date have all been swift repudiations of the arguments set forth by defendant.
At the time of his sentence, Jake received the most time. Presently, Jake is the recipient of the 30th longest sentence.
Recall, at the time of his plea, Jake had been in solitary confinement for approximately 11 months…and was enduring the mental health hardships associated with his diagnosis, rendering him fighting for his life and mental health well being.
Jake was sentenced and thereafter engaged new counsel who had the time to file a motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. He did not do so. He filed a notice of appeal but dismissed the appellate proceeding before filing a brief.
Over one year and two months following sentencing the Government’s own video footage comes to light on Tucker Carlson’s show.
This was not a function of a rogue AUSA, but rather, a function of a discovery protocol established at the highest levels of the DOJ.
Remember, the DOJ characterized Jake as the face of insurrection. The assertion that the non-disclosure of the exculpatory footage was a “whoops” moment in nothing short of unconscionable.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"In solitary confinement for 11 months."
What assertion is erroneous? From what I read yesterday (admittedly skimmed) the government didn’t claim anything inconsistent with that. They said all but 10s of the video was available before sentencing. They didn’t claim it was available before the plea.
How does additional video help a defense, anyway? I mean, if there’s video of you committing crimes at t1, how is other video showing you not committing crimes at t2 exculpatory?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
What assertion is erroneous? From what I read yesterday (admittedly skimmed) the government didn’t claim anything inconsistent with that. They said all but 10s of the video was available before sentencing. They didn’t claim it was available before the plea.
How does additional video help a defense, anyway? I mean, if there’s video of you committing crimes at t1, how is other video showing you not committing crimes at t2 exculpatory?
@jon-nyc said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
How does additional video help a defense, anyway? I mean, if there’s video of you committing crimes at t1, how is other video showing you not committing crimes at t2 exculpatory?
I have many examples of myself not being a complete knobhead. Well, not many but some.
Ok, one. I was once not a complete knobhead.
Proof, as if any more were needed, that I am not a complete knobhead!
-
What assertion is erroneous? From what I read yesterday (admittedly skimmed) the government didn’t claim anything inconsistent with that. They said all but 10s of the video was available before sentencing. They didn’t claim it was available before the plea.
How does additional video help a defense, anyway? I mean, if there’s video of you committing crimes at t1, how is other video showing you not committing crimes at t2 exculpatory?
@jon-nyc said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
What assertion is erroneous? From what I read yesterday (admittedly skimmed) the government didn’t claim anything inconsistent with that. They said all but 10s of the video was available before sentencing. They didn’t claim it was available before the plea.
How does additional video help a defense, anyway? I mean, if there’s video of you committing crimes at t1, how is other video showing you not committing crimes at t2 exculpatory?
Some of the video could reasonably be interpreted as showing that he was not a danger as was stated.
The video showing the defendant all should have been turned over to his defense attorneys.
-
What assertion is erroneous? From what I read yesterday (admittedly skimmed) the government didn’t claim anything inconsistent with that. They said all but 10s of the video was available before sentencing. They didn’t claim it was available before the plea.
How does additional video help a defense, anyway? I mean, if there’s video of you committing crimes at t1, how is other video showing you not committing crimes at t2 exculpatory?
@jon-nyc said in Chansley's Lawyer Speaks:
What assertion is erroneous? From what I read yesterday (admittedly skimmed) the government didn’t claim anything inconsistent with that. They said all but 10s of the video was available before sentencing. They didn’t claim it was available before the plea.
How does additional video help a defense, anyway? I mean, if there’s video of you committing crimes at t1, how is other video showing you not committing crimes at t2 exculpatory?
I agree.
For example, a video shows a car hijacking occurring. If you at the video before the car hijacking, it shows the hijacker helping an old lady across the street.
