In an emotional court hearing this morning, Joe Biggs was sentenced to 17 years in prison for his “crimes” on January 6th. Over 100 reversible errors were committed against the defendants in this trial, so appeals are sure to follow. Still the outcome of today left AUSA prosecutors fuming under the collar that Judge Kelly exercised any amount of common sense or restraint in sentencing the decorated military veteran.
“Mass loss of life gets people into the stratosphere of the sentencing that the government is asking for.” explained Judge Kelly as he pushed back against prosecutors.
The government fought to convince Judge Kelly that the Proud Boys “plotted and planned with the intent that day to cross the Rubicon.” Despite Judge Kelly’s slight rebuke of the government, he expressed consensus with the prosecution in other areas of the case.
“What is so dangerous is how seductive and how tangible it is. They used slick propaganda.” claimed AUSA Jason McCullough.
Notably, much of the exonerating evidence and real context in this case was either held back entirely or omitted and reframed to the public and the jury.
The governments interpretation of what constitutes ‘slick propaganda’ seems self serving at best. It frames things as though Proud Boys knew what they were doing was a lie, instead of the truth — which is that they held their own opinions and convictions about the legitimacy of the election on January 6th (which they have every legal right to hold).
The right to question authority in this case seems to have been criminalized entirely.
The government acknowledged Joe’s prior military service, but argued that he should have used his training to stop the other Trump supporters from entering the capitol. They alleged that “there is no doubt that Joe would continue to act out with violence against his government.”
Defense Attorney Norm Pattis argued that many Americans are now afraid to go out and protest or attend rallies due to the fear of government backlash.
“Often speech is used to explain crime. Here, crime was used to explain speech.” he argued.
Pattis harkened back to the origins of protest being at the heart of our American values. He aptly likened the government’s claims to being pro-censorship.
“According to what the government is claiming, maybe we should ban the reading of Thomas Jefferson?” he posited.
Pattis also pointed out that the government was asking for more time for Proud Boys in comparison to the Oath Keepers, who infamously (albeit slightly mischaracterized by legacy media) had guns parked outside of DC, and a contingency plan to access them if they felt the need should arise.
The Proud Boys made no contingency plans but to protect protestors from Antifa at night, get shitfaced, and hopefully hook up with some groupies.
“To treat this man as a terrorist is comparative to Waco in 1993.” Pattis, explained.
Joe Biggs walked into a building, chanted, and left without incident. No kids were murdered at the hands of Joe Biggs.
“I didn’t go out there to hurt anybody. I just want to be able to be there for my daughter.”
Joe went on to outline some sensitive familial issues that would affect his daughter’s safety and well-being, and the necessity of his presence with her.
Kelly’s answer came with harsh words, leaving the final interpretation up to the public.
“The tradition of peaceful transfer of power in this country was broken for the first time. You asked me not to label you a terrorist. My job is to apply the law in a way that is appropriate. My job is not to label you as a terrorist. That is up to others.”
In the end, Judge Kelly opted for downward departure — 10 below the guidelines and 16 below the government’s request.
Nevertheless, 7 year old Savannah will be without her father for the rest of her childhood.
Many will lay blame at the feet of Joe; but one honest question remains:
If there ever was an election that was stolen, and courts refused to review any evidence, (never reviewed thousands of eyewitnesses and their affidavits, refused investigators resources before hitting 60 minutes to assert that there was no evidence despite not having completed any investigations?) What is the recourse?
This is not an allegation that indeed the 2020 election was stolen. The question is, had it been, what besides protest is your recourse to resist the establishment if the establishment was engaging in theft of an election?
And if you attend that protest, and others nearby engage in heinous action while you laugh at the absurdity while walking next to them, are you now criminally liable for the words and actions of other men?
To Sponsor his Legal Advocacy: http://www.condemnedusa.com
To Sponsor 1776 Returns: Donate