We are just weeks away from the Supreme Court's ruling in Fisher v. United States, a case that could end up resulting in charges being dropped against the more than 300 people who are being prosecuted by the Biden regime for their involvement in the January 6 "insurrection."
Back in April, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter. "Capitol riot" defendant Joseph W. Fisher is challenging a federal felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding, this being the same charge made against hundreds of other January 6 participants.
The same obstruction charge is the basis behind Department of Justice (DoJ) special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution case against former President Donald Trump, the 'ringleader' behind what happened on January 6.
Fisher and his attorneys say the obstruction felony represents an abusive application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which came about in the wake of the Enron scandal. The statute, they argue, was meant to address document destruction pertaining to a financial crime, not political matters such as this.
In March 2022, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols ruled in Fisher's favor by dismissing the obstruction charge against three of the January 6 defendants. However, the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in a 2-1 decision in April 2023, which is how it ended up at the Supreme Court.
"The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted after the 2001 Enron financial accounting fraud scandal, which saw the Texas-headquartered energy firm abruptly declare bankruptcy and dissolve its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP," The National Pulse reported. "Congress swiftly moved to address gaps in financial regulations, which they believed allowed Enron executives to perpetrate fraud."
Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity's knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Speak freely without censorship at the new decentralized, blockchain-power Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.
"Sarbanes-Oxley passed in June 2002 and contained 11 financial reporting provisions aimed at the board of directors for U.S.-based companies. Additionally, the bill enacted enhanced charges for private corporations accused of destroying documents to obstruct a federal investigation."
(Related: Did you know that Congress has paid out $17 million in taxpayer-funded "hush money" to quietly settle sexual harassment claims?)
Supreme Court originalist justices challenge trumped-up charges
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, found in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), states that anyone who alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object – or even just attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding – shall be fined or imprisoned for no more than 20 years.
The statute also states that anyone who obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or who attempts to do so, will face the same consequences.
Clearly the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has nothing to do with what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, but Biden's DoJ is using it anyway to pursue enhanced felony charges against the "insurrection" participants, as well as against Trump.
The oral arguments from April resulted in the Supreme Court's six originalist justices taking a closer look at the Biden regime over its broad application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged the DoJ on why the obstruction charges were needed, especially since Fisher already faces six other charges for his involvement.
"Why aren't those six counts good enough?" Kavanaugh asked the Biden regime's attorneys.
Justice Clarence Thomas also probed further to see if the Sarbanes-Oxley provision had ever even been used in a case prior to the January 6 incident. Justice Elena Kagan, who tends to lean more left, also addressed the fact that Sarbanes-Oxley was intended to address financial crimes, not protests at the Capitol.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the Biden regime the most piercing questions, as well as pressed them to explain further in their own words why they believe Fisher's actions qualify for prosecution under Sarbanes-Oxley.
The latest news about the 2024 election can be found at Rigged.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.