Judge denies bail to man for being a member of the Oathkeepers

A judge has denied bail to one of the men who was part of the mob who broke into the US capitol building, and it is looking like the reason the judge denied bail was simply because the man happened to be a member of the Oath Keepers, a pro-gun rights group.

This is yet another example of how things that should be within an individual's rights can be used against a defendant in decisions in criminal cases.

The criminal complaint accuses Joshua James of being at the capitol during the riot, wearing military style attire and gear, with Oath Keepers patches. The FBI says phone and internet records show James in contact with multiple members of the Oath Keepers throughout November, December and January, including on the day of the riot.

Apparently all he did was break into the capitol building, along with the rest of the mob. But apparently it is looking like him simply being a member of the Oath Keepers was a factor in the judge denying him bail.

Others who broke into the capitol building and did the same exact thing as this man have been released on bail by judges in other states.


This kind of borders on being political bias. To be blunt and state the obvious, it's likely that the judge was a Trump-hating Democrat, had a special animosity against these political activists for the demonstration and riot they carried out, beyond the level of crime they actually committed, and went along with the narrative of viewing members of right wing pro-gun pro-militia groups as being dangerous.
That is, the decision may have likely been motivated by prejudice and animosity, rather than being in proportion to the crime or actual danger.


Again, to state the obvious again, the riot at the capitol was pro-Trump and was designed, to some extent, to intimidate the Democrat Party majority House of Representatives that had just, somewhat controversially, confirmed the election of Biden to the Presidency.
Apparently no guns were actually brought by the rioters into the building though.


related thread about bail being denied for relatively flimsy reasons with the judge prejudiced by gun control factors:
New Jersey court denies bail because man had empty magazines

 

To be fair, this man probably deserves to spend some time in prison, but the question is, does he deserve to spend a year in prison?
Being denied bail pretty much guarantees he's going to spend a year or more in prison because it usually takes that much time before a trial is ready. Even for just a sentencing hearing (presuming he pleads guilty) it is still likely to take 5 or 7 months, or even longer, because the defense side needs time to prepare to make their case to the judge for a more lenient sentence.

 

The amount of bail is supposed to be proportional the flight risk of the accused, and/or his immediate risk to others.
If were him, i would sue the judge for violation of his 8th amendment rights.

 

Unfortunately, there is very little accountability when judges make these type of decisions.
This really seems kind of like a passive aggressive snub. Like "I really don't like what you did, so I'm going to use my position to deny you bail to get back at you".

It's the type of situation that a fair and non-biased judge would have been more likely to grant bail than not.

It's very likely that the prosecutor or detectives were anti-Trump too and trying to give the judge a convenient excuse that could allow him to deny bail to this defendant.

 

Funny how the constitution was created to prevent arbitrary abuses of power such as this.
It's as if they knew...

 

Easier said than carried out.

It's one thing when the Constitution says something, but how does one actually decide and apply that in a case-by-case basis?
How does the Constitution actually get enforced?

This judge still has plausible deniability and can claim he had "reasonable" basis to make the decision that he did and that he was following the law.
I can pretty much 100% guarantee you this judge is not going to face any repercussions.

 

They were basically treating the Oath Keepers as if it were some sort of terrorist group (surprise, surprise).

 

It's pretty simple, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

Given that BLM and ANTIFA rioters and for a lot of places violent criminals are being released without bail at all, this seems egregiously arbitrary, and not in line with how democrats are treating their own criminals.

 

You do realize that he was not actually arrested at the capitol?

He was arrested 58 days later in the state of Alabama.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but in cases like this there's always the possibility of mistaken identity.

 

Are you suggesting the only evidence the FBI has is his resemblance to a picture?

 

Okay, so you don't have a problem with release-on-bail being denied to defendants for arbitrary reasons.

 

On top of that, there's still the question of whether this man deserves to spend 7 to 14 months in prison.
When a judge denies bail, they have pretty much already made the decision to hold them in prison for that length of time.
Because then it goes into the hands of the prosecutor (who typically offers them a plea bargain that they're basically coerced to take, because if they don't plead guilty they just get held in prison for even longer).

Often the exact amount of time a defendant spends in prison is not really determined by the judge, but on when the trial or sentencing hearing finally happens to be carried out, at which point many times the judge will just automatically sentence them to "time served", and they are then released.
Not exactly a "fair" or "deliberate" method of determining punishment.

That's part of why a lot of this ends up being in the hands of the prosecutor.

As to why it takes so long for the defense to be able to present the evidence in front of the judge, that is a long topic for a different thread discussion. The legal system is very slow.

 

Well? (read post #8)

 

Are you saying he deserves to spend 14 months in prison?

His crime was entering into the capitol building without permission, as part of a mob.
Taking part in a riot that was really more of a crazy political demonstration expressing outrage than an attack.

 

This is the establishment making an example of a political opponent. 'OathKeepers will recieve special punishment.' AKA political persecution.

Which will of course just drive the OathKeepers underground and radicalize them. Which of course is the goal. Nothing the authoritarian collectivists would like to see more than an actual real insurrection (as opposed to this tiny hyped up riot( attempted by the modern militia movement.

 

The Capitol of my country where people died and feared for their lives - you damn right!

 

Antifa rioters have been sentenced to less for throwing rocks through windows.

Oh, the double standards!

And I see that it seems the "classical Liberal" has died. Today the activists on the Left are harsh and want an excuse to take out their vengeance, against any who would oppose their message.

 

The judge was a black woman named Robin M. Meriweather, who was appointed as a federal magistrate judge in 2017 under Obama (only ten days before Trump became president).


see "related" thread: prosecutor in serious trouble for case that made Missouri governor resign
Another "activist".

 

It is and they are!

 

You have no rational basis for this statement.

 

Missed the whole 'capitol riot' and the OK presence did you?

 

Thank you for the demonstration that you have no rational basis for your statement.

 

The only person we are certain died is the unarmed woman who was shot by the police.

SO FAR, NOT LIVING UP TO THE HYPE: Amid setbacks, prosecutors abandon some claims in U.S. Capitol riot cases.

Even with Reuters’ anti-Trump spin, it’s weak sauce.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/440387/

 

After a judge ordered one of the protesters to be released on bail, prosecutors are trying to get him to be sent back to jail, pending his trial.
The prosecutors are arguing that the fact he had brought an electric tazor with him indicates that he is a danger, which justifies keeping him in jail before his trial.

Prosecutors have now added on additional charges after his release from jail.
Some of this may be politically motivated, since some Democrat supporters want to support the narrative to the public that the protesters were dangerous, and if all those arrested have been released and are not currently in jail, that will be a symbolic fact that will not support this view.

Federal prosecutors more than doubled the charges against so-called "Zip-Tie Guy" Eric Munchel and his mother Lisa Marie Eisenhart in a superseding indictment filed on Wednesday, charging them with eight counts, including carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon into the U.S. Capitol. That weapon was a Taser, prosecutors say.

Spotting jumping around the Senate chamber in military gear, Munchel got his nickname after wire photographs captured him carrying tactical restraints inside Congress. Munchel claimed to have picked up the plastic handcuffs that Capitol police left behind, but he was not the only person to have done so. Prosecutors have noted that they theoretically could have been used for taking hostages, though they have not specifically alleged that there was such a plot.

The D.C. Circuit previously issued a ruling leading to Munchel and his mother’s release from jail, honing in on the fact that prosecutors did not accuse of them of engaging in violence or vandalism. The ruling in their appeal subsequently raised the bar for prosecutors trying to keep accused U.S. Capitol rioters behind bars pending their trial.

"The District Court based its dangerousness determination on a finding that 'Munchel's alleged conduct indicates that he is willing to use force to promote his political ends,' and that 'such conduct poses a clear risk to the community,'" the appellate court ruled, effectively overturning the pair's pretrial detention order. "In making this determination, however, the Court did not explain how it reached that conclusion notwithstanding the countervailing finding that 'the record contains no evidence indicating that, while inside the Capitol, Munchel or Eisenhart vandalized any property or physically harmed any person,' [...] and the absence of any record evidence that either Munchel or Eisenhart committed any violence on January 6."​

‘Zip-Tie Guy’ and His Mother Now Face More Than Twice as Many Charges in Capitol Siege Case, Including for Bringing a Taser to Congress (msn.com)


You knew this type of thing was coming. Merely having a weapon, even a tazor gun which is usually non-lethal, could apparently constitute grounds for bail to be denied.
This man did not riot or commit vandalism, he trespassed into a place he was not supposed to be at that time.