Is this lawsuit the end of the J6 nonsense?

Politics
1

Not sure if this needs its own topic, or if it just gets rolled into the Tucker thread.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23699523-proud-boys-motion-to-dismiss

Not a fan of the Proud Boys, but there’s parts of this filing that if they are true, every case tried needs to be overturned with prejudice. The whole document is linked above, but I’ll clip some snippets from it.

Pg 4
“What’s deeply troubling,” Watkins said Tuesday, "Is the fact that I have to watch Tucker Carlson to find video footage which the government has, but chose not to disclose, despite the absolute duty to do so. Despite being requested in writing to do so, multiple times.”

Pg 7
Then, in the afternoon session of trial on March 8, it was revealed that the FBI has been monitoring privileged communications of codefendant Rel and his
attorney and discussing Rehl’s case strategy amongst each other. These revelations came out as codefendant Nordean’s counsel Nick Smith cross examined FBI Special Ageny Nicole Miller.

Smith revealed that a secret hidden tab in an FBI spreadsheet showed some of Agent Miller’s emails in which the FBI agent admitted fabricating evidence and following orders to destroy hundreds of items of evidence.

2 Likes
2

This isn’t a real lawsuit. It’s a publicity stunt.

It has absolutely no chance of success.

1 Like
3

Of course, let’s all ignore the FBI agent’s email saying she was ordered to delete 380 items of evidence, nothing to see here.

2 Likes
4

It’s not a lawsuit at all, anyway - it’s an Motion to Dismiss the criminal charges against him.

It still has no chance of success.

5

Even if all of this is true, it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

6

Are motions usually this amateur-hour?

7

I have never seen a motion with a section title like this before, if that answers your question:

FINALLY, A CLEAR AND FLAGRANT SIXTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION WAS REVEALED IN COURT ON MARCH 8 WHICH SCREAMS FOR A DISMISSAL; OR ALTERNATIVELY, A MISTRIAL TO BE DECLARED IMMEDIATELY.

A golden rule when drafting (and reading) and sorts of legal briefs is that the strongest arguments are right up front. Judges are human, they lose interest.

Conversely, you put the weak ones at the end.

1 Like
8

Colloquial legal writing in criminal motion practice is a thing. Whether that’s a good thing is up for debate.

1 Like
9

Motions to dismiss criminal charges are often written using a kitchen sink approach. Some of it is based on billing, some of it based on a hope for a bad judge and all of it is based on the fact that motions to dismiss criminal charges are denied like 99 percent of the time

2 Likes
10

Ask me if I care if it’s a get out of jail free card. That isn’t the issue.

1 Like
11

Well, it is exactly the issue of this MTD.

1 Like
12

The issue isn’t the defendants guilt or innocence, it’s fbi agents destroying evidence. Why do I have to explain this?

3 Likes
13

Do you see the title at the top of the linked document? Where it says “. . . Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice. . .?”

That’s the get-out-of-jail-free card I refer to.

1 Like
14

I understand what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree. It’s fun to get colloquiel.

But there are Small Caps in that heading. There are no Small Caps anywhere else in the document.

2 Likes
15

The actual writing seems pretty amateur

16

Yes - so much so that we’ve gone around the horseshoe.

It’s almost professionally amateur. It’s meant to get headlines.

17

I really don’t care if it was written in crayon on construction paper.

Is it true?

3 Likes
18

Dunno. It’s sworn testimony in a trial, that makes me think “probably”.

19

Why not?

20

:rofl: You’ve been a lawyer for a month.

1 Like