Many new events have taken place since the August 9th email shared in the most recent article on MSG (Ret) Jeremy Brown was written.
Per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 43(b)2, it is Jeremy Brown’s right to elect to hold his misdemeanor hearing either absent his presence at all or by video (Zoom) if he did not wish to appear in person.
The U.S. Government sought to oppose Brown’s right to elect not to appear in person, and the reasons which were given were largely focused upon the importance of an in-person assessment of Brown’s demeanor being necessary–despite Rule 43(b)2 expressly stating that for misdemeanor offenses punishable by one year or less, that a person has the right to choose not to even appear at all.
The motion to grant Brown a trial by Zoom was denied by Judge Mehta, even though the September 4th trial is a bench trial and not a jury trial.
In a decision which flies in the face of judicial economy, Mehta ordered Brown to be moved from the Citrus County Detention Facility in Florida to the DC gulag, where Brown is now being held with the general population and NOT in protective custody with the other J6ers.
I have spoken with Brown and he has emphasized that the conditions where he is being held are “filthy and like a dungeon.”
Why did Judge Mehta believe it was worth the use of government resources to bring whistleblower Jeremy Brown to DC so that he could stand trial and have his demeanor assessed only by Mehta himself for two misdemeanors?
The transcript of the hearing in which this decision was made by Mehta is not yet available, but it is reported that Mehta indicated that it was important for HIM to be able to assess Brown’s demeanor in person and that he wanted to see his face.
(And, for what it’s worth, Ray Epps WAS allowed to attend his sentencing by a DC judge for his plea deal via Zoom.)
Why did Judge Mehta, prior to denying Brown’s right to elect not to appear in person per Rule 43(b)2, ALSO deny Brown’s motion to stay the misdemeanor trial while there is still a pending appeal of the verdict for which Brown is currently serving time, and for which the validity of the search warrant is called into question? That same search warrant in question is pertinent to the misdemeanor trial, and so the stay should have been granted until the conclusion of the appeal.
Why has the U.S. Government insisted on bringing Brown to DC for a trial that they only weeks ago tried to make go away through the offer of a plea deal? Brown believes that he has been moved to DC unnecessarily with the intent to deliberately place him in harm’s way.
Why would the government go through the trouble, the time, and the expense of ensuring that Brown is in DC for a trial that they have already indicated that they would rather see go away?
How is this (above) not an abuse of our justice system? Why is the U.S. government responding in this way to two MISDEMEANOR charges that they, only weeks ago, were offering this whistleblower a plea deal for?
Former Green Beret Jeremy Brown was told that if he rejected the plea deal that the government would consider adding on ADDITIONAL charges.
It now looks like they are gearing up to tack on charges of seditious conspiracy or some other felony charges which would ensure a continued process of punishment for Brown.
What do “hundreds of messages on various Oath Keepers Signal chats” have to do with proving beyond any reasonable doubt the alleged misdemeanors? Where is this coming from?
Why would the government, 3 1/2 years after January 6, and after Brown had already spent over 1000 days behind bars, offer a plea deal on a trespassing charge that came with an implied threat of additional charges if the deal was not accepted?
Despite having labeled Brown an unindicted co-conspirator alongside other Oath Keepers who were charged with felonies, Brown was only charged with two misdemeanors.
Yet, it is clear that the U.S. Government is seeking to abuse the judicial process with attempts to try Brown for charges other than the misdemeanors he is set to stand trial for on September 4th.
As Jeremy Brown often cites, “The process is the punishment.”
The U.S. Government appears to be using whatever they can find in their arsenal to keep Brown from speaking on the record at trial.
Why? Because, unlike other J6 political prisoners, Brown is also a whistleblower who released a recording of his conversation with the two FBI JTTF agents who tried to recruit him to be a confidential human source in the days leading up to January 6, 2021.
The recording is available for the public to hear, which has given the Government motive to target Brown for blowing the whistle.
The audio recording of the JTTF agents is evidence that points to the involvement of federal agents with regard to the events of January 6th, and to allow that evidence to be put on the record in a court of law would undermine the U.S. Government’s argument that those who have been and who continue to be charged, tortured, and punished at the hands of our own government are “insurrectionists.”
The recording was not permitted to be heard by the jury when Brown was tried and sentenced for weapons charges resulting from the unconstitutional raid of his home, during which grenades were “found” in exactly the same way that the pipe bombs were “found” on January 6th.
They were “found” exactly where they were planted as part of a set up. Forensic analysis supports Brown’s claims that the grenades that were “found” are not his; but the DNA of two males IS on those grenades. WHOSE DNA IS IT? It isn’t Brown’s.
The U.S. Government doesn’t ask questions when they don’t want the answers made known.
That is why, despite Brown’s home raid having been labeled a domestic terrorism investigation, and despite Brown being labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the Oath Keeper’s trial (to which they unsuccessfully tried to join his misdemeanor case), MSG (Ret.) Jeremy Brown has never ONCE been interrogated by a member of law enforcement.
Jeremy Brown is NOT suicidal.
Brown reportedly intends to represent himself pro se on September 4th before Judge Mehta.
As the government continues to try to make an argument that this retired 20-year decorated combat veteran is a domestic terrorist threat, it should be kept in mind that the FBI reported in mid-January 2021 that Brown was no threat, even noting that he did not ever enter the Capitol. (See below)
No comments:
Post a Comment