My federal criminal case was already under the First Amendment when the Department of Justice decided in March to indict me on four misdemeanor charges stemming from my reporting at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. was affecting. The case could also put two fundamental rights at risk: the right to self. – Right to defense and travel.
A federal judge on Tuesday denied my lawyers’ motion to lift those restrictions.
The next hearing before Judge Cooper is scheduled for June 3. This should be interesting.
The government absurdly claims that “travel to the District of Columbia is not a ‘right,’ especially for persons who do not reside in or near the District of Columbia while on pretrial release.” To be clear, I am not restricted from traveling to the capital, but I am required to notify a court-appointed pretrial services officer on my way to the district.
District Judge Christopher R. Cooper issued minutes denying both this argument and our request to restore our Second Amendment right to bear arms for personal protection. .
The Cooper decision is unusual. By issuing detailed orders rather than directly responding to our legal arguments (case law, enumerated statutes, etc.), Cooper leaves us with no choice but to seek expedited appeals.
Simply put, we have to get over his head.
There is no danger or escape risk.
The dispute stems from a motion my attorney filed last month challenging two pretrial restrictions the court imposed on me. That means I will surrender my gun and report all trips to a North Carolina pretrial services officer.
Because I have been charged only with nonviolent misdemeanors, the government did not ask the court to hold me in pretrial detention, which was typical of the other misdemeanor defendants on January 6.
You must also notify PSO of your interactions with law enforcement. However, the prosecutor made notable adjustments to my case. The standard language reads: “The defendant shall report any contact with law enforcement officials, including arrests, interrogations, and traffic stops, to pretrial services or a supervisory officer as soon as possible.”
If required, I would be required to report meetings, phone calls, and private messages with numerous Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers that I identified as named and unnamed sources in the report. was there. Fortunately, the Department of Justice amicably agreed to reword this restriction to exclude interactions with law enforcement.
I am also prohibited from sending emails to FBI Special Agent Craig Noyes, the lead investigator on my case. I’m sure that’s the case too..
Other pretrial restrictions are based on two premises – which the government must prove – that I am a “flight risk” and a “danger to society.”
The Department of Justice clearly does not consider me a flight risk. You are free to travel abroad if necessary. As for the “danger” I may pose to society, I have no criminal record at all. Although there appears to be no rational or legal justification to deprive me of my Second Amendment right to self-defense, the government should be aware that if my North Carolina PSO visits my residence unannounced, They claim that they may be at risk.
In fact, my PSO told me directly that they did not consider me a risk. The problem apparently comes from the D.C.-based PSO, which simply memorizes to the judge, “This is how we’ve always done it.”But it is do not have It’s always like that. Other January 6th misdemeanor defendants also had their firearms privileges restored before trial for the very same reasons my lawsuit alleges.
Our opposition to gun control is very simple: I have received numerous threats online, and in two instances had an actual stalker fly across the country to confront me in person about my story. Rejected In order to cover.
Our challenge with notification requirements when traveling to Washington, DC, is more complex. My legal team believes this raises a “separation of powers” issue because I am meeting with members of Congress, their staff, and investigators from various committees. I do not believe it is legally appropriate to notify the Department of Justice (executive branch) or the courts (judicial branch) about meetings with members and staff of the Legislature.
misunderstanding with judge
I want to emphasize here that my travel restrictions are effectively non-existent. All other J6 defendants are not permitted to visit Washington, DC except for court hearings and their trials. The Department of Justice has not sought any such restrictions on me.
The only caveat is the notification requirement. Our objection to this caused an unfortunate misunderstanding with Judge Cooper.
My first phone conversation with a North Carolina pretrial services officer was in April, just days after I appeared before a judge in Washington, D.C., via Zoom. This was a near-repeat of my March 1st arraignment in Dallas, minus the leg irons and belly chain. . He is a friendly and friendly guy, but was surprised by my unique case and the laxity of my travel restrictions. During that call, I unknowingly told him that I intended to immediately file a motion to modify the pretrial restriction.
My PSO in North Carolina then notified the PSO in DC of that conversation and, either due to an unintentional miscommunication or intentional misrepresentation, the PSO in DC declared that I had “no intention” of subjecting myself to the pretrial restrictions. The court was notified of this. As a result, Cooper issued a publicly posted filibuster order warning me to immediately comply with all pretrial restrictions or suffer the consequences.
Of course, I am the one who is being absurd. was We complied with all the restrictions agreed upon during the first two court hearings. The only restriction I had not yet had a chance to fulfill was moving the firearm outside my home. Because I was still in Texas and had not returned to North Carolina to empty the gun safe and deliver the firearm to a safe at a friend’s home.
Judge Cooper and I first met at my arraignment hearing on April 3rd, during which he unnecessarily reprimanded me for not complying with pretrial restrictions. In order to object to this unnecessary instruction from the judge, he wanted to press the “privacy” button to briefly consult a lawyer, but he bit his lip. Unusually, I answered, “Yes, sir.”
In the interest of complete transparency, my attorney wanted prosecutors to seek a travel ban given how much investigative work I have in Washington, D.C. It was a simpler constitutional issue.
My guess is that the prosecutors have already wargamed this scenario during the two-and-a-half month grace period leading up to my March 1st surrender, and this is a necessary public relations move for them. They may have determined that it was not a black eye.
My lawyer, William Shipley, highlighted The unreasonableness of the government’s response to X and the subsequent complaint that the judge dismissed on Tuesday. “This challenge is some of the weakest legal effort I have seen to come out of the Department of Justice over the past 30-plus months,” he wrote. Mr. Shipley served as a federal prosecutor for more than 20 years.
My response was much sharper.
Shipley pointed to “the fact that neither the opposition authors nor the Department of Justice supervisors found any reason to question the inclusion of this sentence” in his motion. [“Travel to the District of Columbia is not a ‘right’] This reflects the almost comedic level of legal “analysis” reflected in the opposition. ”
“The constitutional right to travel from one state to another occupies a fundamental position in the concept of a federal confederation,” Shipley wrote. He continued:
This is a well-established and repeatedly recognized right.in crandall vs nevadaIn order to nullify the Nevada tax on all persons leaving the state by common carrier, the court was guided by a statement by its presiding judge, Chief Justice Taney. passenger case: “For all the great purposes for which the federal government was established, we are one people with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States. And as members of the same community, we They must have the right to move freely through all parts of their communities without interruption, just as they would in any state.”
our discussion was ignored
Judge Cooper’s latest proceedings reveal a far more alarming picture. After the first time I bit my lip at his admonition for something I hadn’t done, I wondered if the DC PSO had mistakenly informed Cooper of my alleged “non-compliance” with existing pre-trial restrictions. thought. This second minute order of his shows that this his PSO is not completely candid with my judge.
The first thing Cooper said in his order seems to confirm my assumption. “Pretrial Services has notified the court that it opposes this request for a delay due to safety concerns…”
Mr. Cooper has made it clear that he is responding directly to the PSO’s claims rather than addressing the legal arguments of our motion.
But what really annoys me is the next statement in the order. “These safety concerns are heightened because Mr. Baker allegedly made threatening statements directed at certain public officials during the January 6, 2021 riot.”
I did not make any threatening remarks before or after January 6th, let alone towards any “specific public official.” This is false and apparently he was told to Cooper by the PSO.
The judge then sentenced me to a different sentence. “Second, requiring Mr. Baker to submit a notice of pretrial services prior to entering the District does not take into account the seriousness of the illegal activity that allegedly took place inside the Capitol on January 6th. “So, appropriate. This is allegedly targeting high-ranking officials.” Members of Congress. ”
First, there was no illegal activity while at the Capitol. none. Then, I was caught on video jokingly calling Nancy Pelosi a “bitch” while we were sharing an adult drink at a hotel in Virginia. rear I left the Capitol.
Is this a new legal precedent that I’m not aware of? Does using a non-threatening derogatory term when referring to a “high-ranking” MP while drinking alcohol now establish that the person is a threat to society? If so, the court should not allow any non-resident to visit our nation’s capital.inside us do not have Is it the crime of referring to MPs with all kinds of derogatory remarks?
The next hearing before Judge Cooper is scheduled for June 3. This should be interesting. My attorney intends to address these minor orders prior to trial, as well as prepare for an expedited appeal. I may still have to bite my lip, but I have high hopes for a vigorous demonstration from the defense team.
We are also awaiting a response to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan’s scathing letter to Matthew Graves, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and we are also awaiting a response to the Department of Justice’s “serious prosecution” of your “selective prosecution.” It truly outlines the “concerns”. Jordan asked Graves to respond by March 26, but had not received a response as of press time.
