2022-11-02 02:58:42
Judge McFadden recognized the sham political persecution of the Illegitimate Executive Branch. This judge defended the US Constitution and all Americans' 1st Amendment! Please read and see what the verdict should be for all non-violent J6 defendants that were not defending themselves from Federal Government violence:
US v Matthew Martin
Bench Trial April5-6 2022 before THE HONORABLE JUDGE TREVOR N. McFADDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
"I want to turn now to the charges. Count 1 is entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. The government must show the defendant knowingly entered or remained in a restricted area. A person acts knowingly if he realizes what he is doing and is aware of the nature of his conduct and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. I should say, I adopt the government's explanation in its trial brief as to the elements of each offense.
First, I find, as I said before, the defendant did enter a restricted area and that the restricted area was as shown in Government's Exhibit 100. Second, I find that the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he had done so. While I think the defendant more likely than not knew he was not allowed to go into the Capitol building, I think his explanation that he thought the officers were allowing him to enter the building raises a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge. The evidence of the officers' actions at the doorway is enough to raise a doubt as to the contrary indicia the government offered.
I also disagree, as I said, with the government that his crossing the trampled snow fence alerted him that he was in a restricted area. The only evidence that we have at all that he crossed the snow fencing was his own testimony and watching the CCTV footage of him taking a shortcut over the lawn where hundreds of people were peaceably milling about raises serious doubts that anyone would believe that area was restricted.
I think Count 1 is a close call, but under our system of law, close calls go to the criminal defendant. For all these reasons I find the defendant not guilty of Count 1.
Count 2 charges him with disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted area. Disorderly conduct occurs when a person is unreasonably loud and disruptive under the circumstances, or interferes with another person by jostling against or unnecessarily crowding that person. Disruptive conduct is a disturbance that interrupts an event, activity, or the normal course of a process. The government points to three examples of disorderly conduct.
The first is his crowding at the entrance to the rotunda lobby. While there was a crowd there, he seemed quite quiet and orderly. He waited when Officer Carrion blocked the way to speak to the other officer, and patted Officer Carrion on the shoulder as he passed by. No reasonable juror could find this activity to be disorderly. There are often crowds in public places, such as concerts, rallies, et cetera. I do not think his mere presence in a crowd entering the Capitol building would qualify as disorderly.
The second instance the government points to is his participation in the crowd inside the rotunda. To be certain, there were many instances of disorderly conduct in the rotunda shown in the government's evidence. I saw yelling, people confronting the officers, and even assaultive conduct toward the officers. The defendant engaged in none of that. For most of the time he stood far back from the crowd and videoed from a distance, much like the apparent press members who were also videoing nearby. He did not shout or chant. In fact, I don't think he spoke at all while in the rotunda.
I do not think the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct in the rotunda was disorderly.
The third instance is when he filmed an officer pulling someone off a window on the north terrace after exiting the building. During this period the defendant is filming some event that is, frankly, out of vision, given the smoke and teargas in the area.
2.0K viewsIvan Raiklin, 23:58
I
