Good day all. One of the biggest violations of constitutional rights against people was the railroading of several members of the Oath Keepers over the January 6th protest. Several were charged and convicted of, among other things, Seditious Conspiracy. As I recall at least one of the people wasn’t even in Washington on that day.
Once President Trump returned to office, these victims of lawfare conducted by the Biden/Garland DoJ were pardoned. More recently, the DoJ, after reviewing the original case I gather, decided that the convictions should be vacated completely, which makes sense. The charges were bogus in the first place. However, another Obama judge has decided that he’s going to be the prosecutor and he is in charge. Here are the details from the Gateway Pundit:
On Friday night, May 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued a brief order deferring ruling on the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss with prejudice the underlying indictments against eight remaining Oath Keepers defendants whose sentences were commuted rather than pardoned.
The DOJ had filed the motion on May 22 following the D.C. Court of Appeals’ vacatur of the Oath Keepers’ convictions and remand to Mehta for consideration of the anticipated motion to dismiss.
An aside here. When I was working on this, I thought that the Gateway Pundit story had made a typo, specifically the word “Vacatur.” But, in the interests of accuracy, I looked it up.
Vacatur is a legal term that refers to a court order that sets aside or annuls a previous judgment or proceeding, effectively making it void. It is often used by appellate courts to overturn lower court decisions.
In any case, what should have been a simple housekeeping ruling has turned into a potential constitutional crises because yet another foreign born Obama judge has decided that he makes the decisions on prosecuting cases, not the DoJ.
While the DC Court of Appeals promptly granted the DOJ motion to vacate the convictions and remand, Judge Mehta (an Obama appointee) is asserting that the government’s motion to dismiss is “insufficiently detailed” and lacking a sufficient “statement of reasons and underlying factual basis,” ordering the DOJ to provide him more information by June 5 on why dismissal with prejudice serves the public interest.
This is not his job. He doesn’t decide if a case is to be brought. In this case, the department of Justice has decided that these cases should be dismissed and with prejudice, meaning they can never be brought again. Basically, the DoJ has determined that there should be no prosecution. All this thug of a judge should be doing is going, “OK, case dismissed with prejudice” and take care of the paperwork.
This move stands in stark tension with established precedent affirming broad prosecutorial discretion. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), the government may dismiss an indictment “with leave of court,” but courts’ role is narrowly cabined.
Again with the arcane legal terms. I looked up what is meant when they say a court’s role is cabined.
When a court is described as cabined, it means that its authority or discretion is restricted or limited in some way. This term often refers to legal rules or precedents that confine the court’s ability to make broader decisions.
As I said, Mehta’s only job is to say case dismissed, and handle the paperwork. Instead, he’s decided to ignore precedent, something that a lot of Liberal judges love to do if they don’t like something.
In Rinaldi v. United States (1977), the Supreme Court held that a district court abuses its discretion by denying such a motion absent a showing that the dismissal is tainted by prosecutorial harassment or bad faith aimed at the defendant.
Basically if the prosecutors are not screwing around, then a judge just grants the motion.
In short, Rinaldi’s bad-faith exception is a narrow shield for defendants, not a broad sword for judges to veto executive charging policy. Courts applying it post-Rinaldi have rarely sustained denials without strong evidence of defendant-targeted misconduct in the dismissal request itself.
Now here I’m going to show my confusion. If the prosecution is dismissing the case, with prejudice, how can that be considered misconduct? I mean I could see it if the defendant had bribed the prosecutor, but that isn’t happening here.
When a motion to dismiss with prejudice is uncontested by defendants (who thereby face no jeopardy of re-prosecution), the judge’s role is minimal—to safeguard defendants’ rights, which are not threatened here.
And this is where the problem has arisen. Mehta has decided that he wants these people locked up, period, end of sentence, full stop and he’s willing to ignore precedent and supreme court rulings. As far as I’m concerned, we’re seeing a clear case of Judicial Misconduct.
By demanding a deeper factual justification and public-interest analysis, Judge Mehta appears to be stepping into the role of prosecutor, weighing policy and evidence in a manner reserved for the Executive.
The DOJ is clearly seeking dismissal with prejudice precisely because the Trump Administration wants to end the partisan lawfare against Trump supporters and J6 political prisoners, who President Trump correctly referred to as “hostages.”
Looking at Mehta, he’s on the Washington District Court, which pretty much explains what’s going on. This court is loaded with Obama and Biden judges with a few Clinton judges thrown in for good measure. This includes James Boasberg.
The goal is to prevent even the possibility of a future Democrat President and Attorney General re-trying these men on these same charges, and to remove the taint of an indictment.
And there is your reason that this judicial tyrant is pulling this garbage. The Democrats have already announced that they intend to go after anyone they see supporting President Trump. The Washington District Court’s actions over the last 5-6 years shows that they will, for the most part, do what the Democrat Party and the Deep State want.
I suspect that Mehta’s trying to either delay things in hopes that a Democrat wins the White House, (Or, if previous history is any guide, steal the election), so they can put all the Democrat’s enemies in prison. Normally, this would be just another conspiracy theory, but we’ve seen how many so called conspiracy theories have turned out.
That is why the Trump Administration DOJ moved the DC Court of Appeals to vacate the convictions (also done with the remaining commuted Proud Boys) and to remand the cases back to the trial courts for dismissal with prejudice.
This is precisely what was done in the wake of those pardoned J6ers who had active appeals pending when they were pardoned – their convictions were vacated and their indictments were dismissed with prejudice.
And that is what Judge Mehta likely finds offensive – he apparently wants these men to be vulnerable to possibly being re-tried on the same Biden regime indictments once the Democrats take power again, and he wants the taint of indictments to continue.
I think I just said that. There is also a pattern apparently to Mehta’s misconduct, up to and including blatant violations of people’s constitutional rights. According to the Gateway Pundit story, Meth head Mehta actually ordered one of the people who’s sentence was commuted, someone named Stewart Rhodes, from entering Washington without his permission.
After President Trump commuted the sentences of Stewart Rhodes and his co-defendants on January 20, 2025, Rhodes promptly visited congressional offices on Capitol Hill to personally advocate for the release of fellow Oath Keeper and Special Forces veteran Jeremy Brown, who was still being held in federal prison by willful leftist judges and BOP officials who refused to acknowledge that President Trump’s pardon applied to Brown’s conviction.
Which is any citizen’s right. He went to seek a redress of grievances by talking with his representative. I also recall the business regarding Jeremy Brown and the outright refusal by the Bureau of Prisons and a few judges to do so after the pardons were issued. He was eventually released 37 days after his pardon.
Acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin immediately pushed back, filing a motion arguing that Mehta’s restrictions violated the defendants’ rights and that Judge Mehta was disregarding President Trump’s intent to lift all restrictions and burdens on their free speech and assembly.
Which Metha was doing. With the new motion, Mehta was forced to concede that as much as he wanted to, he couldn’t keep Rhoades out of Washington. This was just another in a pattern of misconduct by Mehta. There is, of course more.
Rhoades gave an interview in jail saying that he believed the 2020 election was stolen, (And it was. More and more data is being generated showing that Biden was illegally installed into the White House) He also said that when you no longer have a meaningful ability to elect your president and representatives, all that is left is the “Founders choice,” having to eventually nullify and resist illegitimate and tyrannical government.
Though Rhodes’ statements were manifestly First Amendment protected political free speech, Mehta responded in substance that “we cannot have this in our democracy,” treating Rhodes’ continued political speech as evidence of ongoing dangerousness warranting a lengthy prison term.
After quoting Rhodes’ jailhouse interview, Mehta declared: “You, sir, present an ongoing threat and a peril to this country, to the republic and to the very fabric of our democracy… You are smart, you are compelling, and you are charismatic. Frankly, that is what makes you dangerous, even while incarcerated.” Then he sentenced Rhodes to 18 years and said “good luck.”
And right there is clear judicial misconduct and as far as I’m concerned, grounds to remove Amit Mehta from the bench.
Judge Mehta’s latest order delays closure for defendants whose sentences were already commuted. It underscores ongoing tensions between branches: an Executive exercising prosecutorial discretion versus a district judge demanding veto power over policy-driven dismissals.
And there is also another, and far more dangerous potential problem. If people decide that certain judges will prejudge a case, primarily for political reasons, then they might decide, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” It’s been decades since a federal judge was directly targeted. Several have been killed incidentally, basically being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but we have to go back to the 80’s and earlier. I would prefer to leave all that in the past.
However, with judges like Mehta on the bench, we do have a real problem that needs to be addressed. They are actively pushing this country into a constitutional crises, both on the Civil side of things, and now on the criminal side. I think it’s time for Congress to step in. While I would love to see Amit Mehta and others in the Washington District Court impeached and convicted, that isn’t happening. Perhaps it’s time to have congress just dissolve the Washington District Court and forcibly retire all the judges on it. We will lose some good ones, but as far as I’m concerned, it has to be done.
Thatisall
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
