Shaman
-
Note: EX- lawyer....
Jacob Chansley, the Viking helmet and coyote fur-headdress bedecked rioter turned “flagbearer” of Jan. 6 widely known as the “QAnon Shaman,” has retained a lawyer fired by Kyle Rittenhouse to explore a possible appeal of his recent sentence of more than three years in federal prison.
“Mr. Chansley will be pursuing all remedies available to him under the Constitution and federal statutory law with respect to the outcome of the criminal prosecution of him by the United States Department of Justice,” attorneys John Pierce and William Shipley wrote in a press release announcing his representation. ” This includes a possible direct appeal of his conviction and sentence to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as well as claims of ‘Ineffective Assistance of Counsel’ in the appropriate venue.”
Pierce entered a notice of appearance in federal court on Monday.
After pleading guilty to obstructing a congressional proceeding (a charge some judges have questioned), Chansley received a 41-month sentence from Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Ronald Reagan appointee who called him the “very image” of the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“What you did was terrible,” Lamberth told Chansley before pronouncing his sentence, which fell toward the lower end of the federal guidelines. “You made yourself the epitome of the riot.”
Under the terms of his plea deal, Chansley expressly waived most of his appellate rights, but a subclause of the agreement appears to contemplate the type of challenge Chansley is considering.
“Notwithstanding the above agreement to waive the right to appeal the conviction and sentence, your client retains the right to appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, but not to raise on appeal other issues regarding the conviction or sentence,” the plea agreement states.
Chansley’s former attorney Albert Watkins, who described his ex-client and Jan. 6 suspects more generally as “fucking short bus people,” was previously dressed down by Judge Lamberth for arranging a “media publicity stunt” interview with 60 Minutes+, which the court found harmed their defense. Watkins had his client agree to the serious obstruction of an official proceeding charge early, even as an increasing number of federal judges have questioned the statute’s use in Jan. 6 cases. Watkins’s client, however, ultimately received a sentence at the bottom of the sentencing guidelines range, far lower than the 51 months imprisonment sought by prosecutors.
Watkins did not immediately respond to Law&Crime’s email requesting comment.
Like Watkins, Pierce has sparked controversy in connection with Jan. 6 and other cases. At a time when he represented some 17 Capitol breach defendants, Pierce was reportedly hospitalized with COVID-19 after rejecting broad scientific consensus about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Pierce recovered and denied reports of being on a ventilator, but in the interim, prosecutors said, the person appearing in his stead was “not a licensed attorney.”
Legal experts questioned Pierce’s floated appellate plans.
“Appealing directly on the grounds of ineffective assistance is an uphill battle because you’re limited to the record below and can’t supplement with evidence of why you think the representation was ineffective,” defense attorney Ken White, better known by his Twitter nom de plume “Popehat,” tweeted. “So you’re left to argue ‘you can tell the attorney was ineffective just from the cold record.’ Far better way is a 2255 motion (federal equivalent of a habeas corpus) in which you can introduce new evidence.”
Mitch Epner, a former federal prosecutor who is now of counsel with Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC, , agreed that the odds of any hypothetical appeal are long.
“Ordinarily, [defense] can’t raise ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’ on direct appeal, but only in collateral attack under Sec. 2255,” Epner tweeted. “To win, [defense] would have to prove both prejudice (deficient counsel) & harm (outcome would have been different). Next to impossible after guilty plea.”
Before being fired from Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal time in February, Pierce supported the teen through the #FightBack Foundation, a 501(c)4 organization founded by lawyer Lin Wood.
-
The right to overthrow the government is in the Constitutiin.
Does it though?
The only thing I can find is this:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
-
The right to overthrow the government is in the Constitutiin.
Does it though?
The only thing I can find is this:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
The right to overthrow the government is in the Constitutiin.
Does it though?
The only thing I can find is this:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But let's read that code in its entirity:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
-
The right to overthrow the government is in the Constitutiin.
Does it though?
The only thing I can find is this:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But let's read that code in its entirity:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
-
The Constitution definitely favours people who dress up like stupid twats.
"....And whosoever shalt dress up in a manner akin to a fool, then Dear Prudence shall come out to play, and she shall tell the Government that it shall shew no cause or impediment to his tomfoolery, neither shall he be ridiculed, nor shell he have nasturtiums cast upon him, and it his Right to place upon his stupid head a payre of Hornes."
-
@larry I think you have your documents mixed up
You're correct, I do. I quoted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. My mistake. Still, it clearly in the Declaration of Independence that the people have the right to abolish the government and institute a new one. I would assume then, that this means the Constitution plays second fiddle, and would be abolished as well, with the new government deciding whether or not to incorporate it into the new government or not, and how much on the Constitution might be kept.
-
-
@larry I think you have your documents mixed up
You're correct, I do. I quoted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. My mistake. Still, it clearly in the Declaration of Independence that the people have the right to abolish the government and institute a new one. I would assume then, that this means the Constitution plays second fiddle, and would be abolished as well, with the new government deciding whether or not to incorporate it into the new government or not, and how much on the Constitution might be kept.
@larry I think you have your documents mixed up
You're correct, I do. I quoted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. My mistake. Still, it clearly in the Declaration of Independence that the people have the right to abolish the government and institute a new one. I would assume then, that this means the Constitution plays second fiddle, and would be abolished as well, with the new government deciding whether or not to incorporate it into the new government or not, and how much on the Constitution might be kept.
The Declaration of Independence was exactly that... a declaration. It outlined why our country broke away from the monarchy and the ideals for which a new country/constitution/government would be formed.
So the Constitution was later created, and are where rights are outlined.
Those on January 6th were explicitly executing anti-Constitution acts, even if they thought it was just anti-Government. They were objecting to the government following election law and the constitution process regarding the election of leaders and the peaceful transfer of power, fueled by misinformation. Which was a shame, as I'm sure most involved love America and the constitution as much as anyone else.
