DOJ j6 loss at D.C. Cir.

The defendant is a man named Mr. Larry Brock and the case is U.S. v. Brock, but the opinion hot off the press for your download is a solid circuit court ruling against the U.S. Department of Justice that enhancement does not apply to an 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2) charge.  Not everything went in Mr. Brock’s favor, but the ruling is a substantial victory that the Washington Post says may impact sentences of more than 100 similarly situated defendants.

For me and the analysis points I’ve repeated and repeated and only just submitted in an Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Fischer v. U.S., it was also a victory.

The ruling includes the first correct finding that the oversight and counting of the electoral ballots by Congress is not the equivalent of a judicial proceeding.  I made the point in my recent Amicus Brief in another j6 that D.C. District Court judges were making errors talking about the Electoral College vote process.  Here’s a quote from today’s ruling:

“To be sure, Members of Congress consider, review, and act upon evidence in the form of the state certifications.  But, in so doing, Congress does not adjudicate the right of the President-elect to be President, or the right of voters to have their elected candidate declared President.  Its role is limited to resolving disputes regarding the evidence of electoral votes by congressional vote.” (Page 29.)

The ruling also calls out what I repeatedly called out and that is the misleading titles and abbreviations the U.S. DOJ gives to statutes.  In the ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court points to wrongful abbreviations and short-hands from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.  In judge speak, here is how the three-judge appellate panel dissed the U.S. DOJ:

• “To start, the government selectively truncates its quotations.” (Page 30.)

• “And the government similarly drops qualifying language from its quotation of United States v. Partin…” (Page 30.)

• “By carving language out of context in that manner, the government effectively rewrites “administration of justice” to mean “administration of laws.”  That reading would vastly expand the sentencing enhancement beyond the bounds of its normal textual connotation and interpretive commentary.” (Page 31.)

• “The government admits as much….” (Page 31.)

• “That is not how the Sentencing Guidelines work.  While the title of a specific part or guideline may serve as an interpretive tool (citations omitted), it cannot stretch a guideline’s reach beyond its textual bounds.” (Pages 35-36.)]

And, my favorite quote from the ruling: 

“It is textually indisputable that the Guidelines confine the Section 2J1.2(b)(2) enhancement to those offenses that interfere with the ‘administration of justice,’ not the administration of everything Congress does, or the administration of government, or the administration of all laws broadly.” (Page 36.)

Similar to the court ruling, in my SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Fischer v. U.S., I pointed to wrongful titles to statutes, such as the U.S. DOJ persistent misuse of “Obstruction of Justice” and “Obstruction of Congress” when referencing 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2). 

The upside of the manner in which U.S. DOJ made repeated over-reach of their interpretation of statutes and sentencing guidelines is that any mistake they made they made on a large scale.  The injustices are gross, but victories will help many. 

This is the first ruling I have seen out of D.C. that got these two points right.  It’s a bench filled with former federal prosecutors, several of whom worked in the D.C. office of U.S. DOJ. 

We can only hope that SCOTUS is as clear-headed about these two points, as they deliberate the briefs and amicus briefs on their desk.  Oral arguments in Fischer v. U.S. are scheduled for Tuesday, April 16, 2024.

Alright! Now, back to Gold Rush, y’all!