In a move to maintain our constitutional liberties, a dedicated team of January 6th experts and advocates are utilizing cutting-edge artificial intelligence to shed light on the alleged unconstitutional actions of DC Federal Judges during the January 6th trials. Their mission: to expose the tyranny lurking in the judiciary.
Having recently released an “Executive Summary,” the team presents findings from a mere one percent of all related cases, drawing from extensive reports on the prosecution and judicial handling of January 6th events. This summary includes insights from cases involving individuals such as the Middletons, Mock, Barnett, Bingert, and more.
The ultimate goal is to ignite congressional investigations into what they describe as the “Weaponization Of The Judiciary,” examining allegations of conspiracy against rights, corruption, bias, misconduct, and violations of constitutional rights by judges within the DC federal circuit.
Amidst the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s pardons of January 6th defendants, the team highlights critical concerns over fairness and impartiality in these prosecutions. Here are the essential findings and recommendations provided for congressional action:
Key Findings:
Judicial Conduct
Potential Bias:
- In the Goodwyn case, Judge Walton’s sentencing considerations raised First Amendment issues by factoring in the defendant’s political speech.
- Judge Cooper denied a motion for a new trial in Barnett despite allegations of false testimony, potentially affecting fairness.
- Giustino saw Judge Boasberg dismiss jurisdictional challenges without meaningful review.
- Judge Contreras labeled jurisdictional arguments as “gibberish” in Kelso, suggesting bias against pro se defendants.
Procedural Oversight:
- Favoritism towards the prosecution was noted, such as Judge Kelly’s denial of discovery motions in Horn and disproportionate sustaining of prosecution objections in Middleton.
Prosecutorial Conduct
Overreach:
- In the Fournier case, late-discovered evidence justified harsher sentencing, raising due process concerns.
- Prosecutor Ross in Camden attributed speculative intent without evidence, inflating culpability.
- Goodwyn’s prosecutor sought a $26,000 fine based on unsubstantiated fundraising claims.
- Sentence requests exceeding guidelines were noted in Horn.
Inflammatory Rhetoric:
- Terms such as “rioters” and “mob” in Middleton and “violent spectrum” in Camden were used to prejudice courts.
Selective Evidence:
- Prosecutors in Bingert and Sturgeon omitted exculpatory context, indicating bias.
Rights Violations
First Amendment:
- Political expression was penalized, as seen in Brock, Camden, and Goodwyn.
Due Process:
- Cases like Barnett, Kelso, and Mock faced procedural fairness issues.
Sixth Amendment:
- Self-representation rights were undermined in Giustino and Kelso.
Sentencing and Procedural Issues
Disparities:
- Sentences often exceeded norms or varied inconsistently, such as in Fournier and Brock.
Procedural Irregularities:
- Examples include narrowly interpreted pardons and limited defense options due to discovery denials.
Context of Presidential Pardons
Trump’s pardons have pointed out perceived prosecutorial injustices, particularly in cases like Camden, Fournier, and Kelso, necessitating further scrutiny.
Recommendations
- Congressional Investigation: A comprehensive inquiry into January 6 prosecutions is essential, with subpoenas for records, materials, and correspondence.
- Judicial Oversight: Judges exhibiting potential bias or procedural lapses, such as Walton and Boasberg, should be reviewed.
- Prosecutorial Accountability: Investigate cases of overreach and ethical breaches by prosecutors like Haag and Ross.
- Legislative Reform: Propose laws to clarify intent in sensitive charges, enhance self-representation rights, and ensure sentencing consistency.
- Case Review: Reassess convictions for alignment with pardons and rights violations, offering relief where needed.
For additional insights, check out the team’s post on X below as they introduce their vital work to the world.
BREAKING: Deep Dive into DOJ Overreach – DOCL Launches Major Transcript Research Initiative
— TOMMYTATUMNEWS (@BenKaxton)
March 31, 2025
