Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

U.S. v. Alexander Sheppard, D.C. District Court

Post Reply
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7493
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

U.S. v. Alexander Sheppard, D.C. District Court

#1

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA15JXT8
Judge: Jan. 6 committee evidence suggests Trump asked rally crowd to break the law

The Jan. 6 select committee’s finding that Donald Trump lured followers to storm the Capitol does not absolve them of legal responsibility for their actions, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, the first opinion to cite the congressional panel’s criminal referrals of the former president.

U.S. District Court Judge John Bates cited the select committee’s reportand criminal referrals to swat down a Jan. 6 defendant’s claim that he believed Trump had authorized him and other rioters to enter the Capitol when he urged the crowd to march down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that defendant Alexander Sheppard should be prohibited from making the “public authority” defense because there’s simply no evidence Trump told his followers that entering the restricted grounds of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was legal. In fact, his incendiary rhetoric — especially telling his supporters to “fight like hell” — may suggest Trump was asking them to break the law, Bates said.

His words “could signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful,” Bates found.

Bates’ ruling is the first to reckon with the select committee’s finding that Trump violated at least four federal laws in his crusade to subvert the 2020 election. And it is an early window into how the judiciary might interpret the unusual findings of criminal violations by a congressional committee.

Bates noted that the select committee’s findings might, on the surface, lend credence to the notion that Trump had somehow sought to give supporters permission to go into the Capitol. The panel, he said, cited Trump’s Jan. 6 speech as a triggering moment for the attack on the Capitol, quoting the report’s finding that Trump “summon[ed] a mob to Washington, and knowing they were angry and armed, instruct[ed] them to march to the Capitol.”

But the committee’s finding, Bates ruled, does not suggest that Trump told his followers that entering the Capitol would be legal. In fact, Trump’s incendiary rhetoric might have done just the opposite.

“Thus, the conclusions reached here — that even if protesters believed they were following orders, they were not misled about the legality of their actions … is consistent with the Select Committee’s findings,” Bates wrote.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14209
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

U.S. v. Alexander Sheppard, D.C. District Court

#2

Post by RTH10260 »

MAGA rioter convicted after arguing Trump gave him legal permission to enter Capitol

Ray Hartmann
January 27, 2023

A 23-year-old Ohio man best known for his lawyer’s bizarre legal argument that he had legal permission from Donald Trump to invade the U.S. Capitol on January 6 has been found guilty of felony and misdemeanor charges.

Alexander Sheppard, of Powell, Ohio, was found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, a felony, along with a slew of misdemeanors in connection with the Capitol riot, the Department of Justice reported. But Sheppard’s case stood out mostly for his attorney’s failed attempt to convince a judge that he had Trump’s official blessing.

Sheppard gained notoriety for the argument “in which he claimed that Trump had given him legal permission to go into the Capitol building on January 6,” as Raw Story reported. U.S. District Court Judge John Bates cited the House Select Committee report in slapping down the argument.

“Trump telling his supporters to "fight like hell" while also encouraging them to march to the Capitol "could signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful."



https://www.rawstory.com/alexander-sheppard-convicted/
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

U.S. v. Alexander Sheppard, D.C. District Court

#3

Post by humblescribe »

Um, does the Executive Branch have any authority anywhere in the Constitution or elsewhere that can assert squatters' rights to federal property and assign those rights to others? As the Chief of CONTROL and Siegfried would say, "I find that hard to believe." :daydreaming:
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

U.S. v. Alexander Sheppard, D.C. District Court

#4

Post by bob »

humblescribe wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:36 pm Um, does the Executive Branch have any authority anywhere in the Constitution or elsewhere that can assert squatters' rights to federal property and assign those rights to others? As the Chief of CONTROL and Siegfried would say, "I find that hard to believe." :daydreaming:
Last Birther Laity argued the state-of-the-union clause lets the president visit Congress whenever the president wants to.

Ergo, the president can designate people to do so in his stead. :towel:
Image ImageImage
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

U.S. v. Alexander Sheppard, D.C. District Court

#5

Post by humblescribe »

bob wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:46 pm
humblescribe wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:36 pm Um, does the Executive Branch have any authority anywhere in the Constitution or elsewhere that can assert squatters' rights to federal property and assign those rights to others? As the Chief of CONTROL and Siegfried would say, "I find that hard to believe." :daydreaming:
Last Birther Laity argued the state-of-the-union clause lets the president visit Congress whenever the president wants to.

Ergo, the president can designate people to do so in his stead. :towel:
Ahh...

Now you can see why I did not become a lawyer. I am too square. :towel:
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

U.S. v. Alexander Sheppard, D.C. District Court

#6

Post by bob »

humblescribe wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:11 pmNow you can see why I did not become a lawyer.
"For the record," Last Birther Laity also isn't a lawyer.
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “The January 6 Insurrection, including Criminal Cases”