Targets of the Democrat-dominated UH House Committee on the events around Jan. 6th, 2021 at the US Capitol, have involved prolonged court hearings and trials. Defendants have been made to pay for very expensive fines, fees, and legal representation, in what appears to be political persecution by a handful of political opponents of President Donald J. Trump.
The evidence of a two-tiered justice system- one for the politically well-connected and another for supporters of President Trump, are bombastic in our faces- in the cases of those caught up in the US House’s frenzy to “get to the bottom of Jan. 6”.
And at least one woman was charged for being in the Capitol with special charges because of the incorrect information that Vice President Mike Pence was in the building, but as we learned recently, Pence was not in the US Capitol when groups of American citizens were gathering there.
And that changes everything- right?
FIRST SOME BACKGROUND
The US Government brought a lawsuit against a flower shop owner, who was at the US Capitol on Jan. 6th, and it was finally settled last week. And what her case revealed is being ignored by the media.
“On January 13, 2021, Jenny Cudd was arrested on nonviolent misdemeanor charges of unlawful entry into a restricted building and disorderly conduct inside of the Capitol. Although the government never possessed any evidence of violence by Ms. Cudd, and although the FBI had conducted interviews prior to the arrest and noted in an FD-302 that Ms. Cudd is not a “threat concern,” she was arrested in her flower shop by a team of at least eight heavily armed officers brandishing rifles and two K9s. Ms. Cudd was not alerted that she was wanted for misdemeanor offenses and was never given an opportunity to turn herself in on these charges, despite an FD-302 describing Ms. Cudd as “considerate, respectful, and generally a nice person,” court documents said.
CBS7 Reported on Cudd’s sentencing, after the case was finally settled:
A Washington D.C. District Court sentenced Midlander Jenny Cudd to two months probation and a $5,000 fine for her role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots. That’s according to our CBS affiliate WUSA9 in Washington D.C.
The ruling handed down by Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump-appointed judge, ends a grueling case that lasted over a year.
“I can tell you that it is quite horrifying,” Cudd said.
According to court documents, Cudd’s attorneys argued “The politically motivated treatment of the January 6 defendants and the disparate treatment of Ms. Cudd as compared to Portland, Seattle, and Kavanaugh protesters are also factors in consideration of an equitable penalty. Alternatively, based on new evidence discovered by the defense after Ms. Cudd’s guilty plea, the defense seeks sanctions in the form of dismissal or suspension of penalty for the government’s failure to timely produce exculpatory evidence.”
The federal government recommended that Cudd be sentenced to 75 days of incarceration.
In an interview with CBS7 following the sentencing, Cudd said she was relieved but took aim at the federal government.
“I believe that the Biden administration has weaponized the Department of Justice,” Cudd said. “And that has been shown over and over, and not just against January 6 defendants.”
And she is right, especially when the details of Cudd’s case really sink in.
Key Point: Pence was not in the building, and that changed everything in the case of Jenny Cudd who was accidentally in a “restricted area’, that had no reason to be restricted. Perhaps that is why no law enforcement told people to leave at the time?
Consider:
“This new information could help a lot of people, I think,” David Sumrall of Stop Hate, told me, when he brought this story to my attention. Sumrall, a documentary maker, is an expert on the details of the J6 detainees and on the hundreds of hours of footage that the government does not want people to know about.
Here is what to know- Pence had left the building, according to Cudd’s legal documents.
UNITED STATES V. JENNY CUDD (DDC) PAGE 24 / 68 DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
V. NEW EVIDENCE DISCOVERED AFTER GUILTY PLEA
———————————————————————————————————————
A) Background On February 3, 2021, the government filed an Indictment charging Ms. Cudd with five
criminal counts related to her entry into the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Two of the counts in the indictment, Count Two and Count Three, specifically noted that the Vice President and the Vice President-elect were temporarily visiting the Capitol and its Grounds, and that areas were cordoned off or otherwise restricted.
See Document 18. The government needed these facts in order to allege a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752, which defines the term “restricted buildings or grounds” as “any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area… of a building or grounds. The government’s Statement of Offense carefully phrases that the Congressional sessions had to be suspended, but 2 the government does not state the reason why. After all, the protestors did not make their way into the building until after the recesses were called. Though this remains unclear, an inference can be made that the recesses were called as a result of an allegation of pipe bombs being located at the RNC and DNC buildings shortly before the recesses were called.
See U.S. Senate Media, Written Testimony of USCP Former Chief of Police Steven A. Sund before the
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate (2/23/2021), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/TestimonySund-2021-02-23.pdf. This would also explain why the House was called into recess at 2:18 PM and then resumed at 2:26 PM. There is currently no known case connection between the DOJ pipe bomb investigation and the Capitol breach case investigations. The DOJ has not provided counsel with any discovery referencing the pipe bomb
investigation. Where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.”
An area could only be considered restricted under this statute if a person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.
On October 11, 2021, the defendant signed a plea deal to Count Two and associated Statement of Offense. See ECF No. 76. According to Section 3 of the plea agreement, “the attached ‘Statement of Offense’ fairly and accurately describes your client’s actions and involvement in the offense(s) to which your client is pleading guilty.”
The Statement of Offense outlined the government’s factual basis for the plea, which stated the facts regarding Ms. Cudd’s culpability more precisely and more narrowly than in the Indictment. In Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Offense, the government declared that the factual basis for the plea is that the Vice President was in the Capitol (as opposed to the Capitol and its grounds, as listed in the Indictment), and
entirely omitted reference to the Vice President-elect.ECF No. 76. The government thus narrowed down two separate factual bases for Ms. Cudd’s guilty plea: (1) from the Vice
President and the Vice President-elect, to just the Vice President, and (2) from the Capitol and its
grounds to just the Capitol. The defense had no part in the drafting of this statement, nor had any additional knowledge of the whereabouts of the Vice President or the Vice President-elect. Defendant’s
knowledge of the whereabouts of the Vice President and the Vice President-elect was limited to what the government alleged on the record in this case and in other January 6 prosecutions, and the defense trusted the government’s statements given under oath to the grand jury and statements made under ethics rules to this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Anna Morgan-Lloyd, 1:21-cr-00164-RCL, ECF No. 22, (D.D.C. June 17, 2021) (“… Vice President Pence, who had remained within the Capitol building throughout the events.”). The government, other than statements made under penalty of perjury and
under an ethical obligation of honesty, had not provided separate evidence to the Defense as to the whereabouts of the Vice President or the Vice President-elect.
Ms. Cudd pleaded guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment on October 13, 2021, in reliance on the government’s representations of fact regarding the Vice President and Vice President-elect
B) The Vice President-elect was not in the Capitol or its Grounds
Two months after entry of Ms. Cudd’s plea, the Defense learned, not through discovery provided by the government, that the Vice President-elect was not in the Capitol or its grounds when Ms. Cudd entered the Capitol — that what Ms. Cudd’s Indictment alleged with regard to the Vice President-elect, that the Vice President-elect was in the Capitol at the time that Ms. Cudd entered, was plainly false.
This revelation was first noted by the government in writing on November 2, 2021, three weeks after Ms. Cudd’s plea, in a footnote, in a government response briefing filed in another January 6 prosecution. See United States v. John Andries, 1:21-cr-00093-RC, ECF No. 31 (D.D.C. November 2, 2021). A review of media reports showed that the information about the whereabouts of the Vice President-elect was mentioned by the government orally, a few days prior to the footnote, at a sentencing hearing for Eric
Torrens. “After Chief Judge Beryl Howell said Torrens’ actions contributed to the disorder that prompted Pence and Harris to be evacuated from the Senate chamber, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jamie Carter chimed in to say that the government had ‘recently learned’ that Harris was not actually present when the Capitol was breached.”3 Then, the defense learned in December of 2021, through an incidental filing in one of the defense counsel’s other January 6 client’s cases, that the government is filing superseding indictments to remove mention of the Vice President-elect in at least some of the January 6 prosecutions. See, e.g., United States v. Nicholas Rodean, 1:21-cr-00057-TNM, ECF No. 36 (D.D.C. February 2, 2022). The government never explained the basis to undersigned counsel for Kyle Cheney, Josh Gerstein, and Christopher Cadelago, DOJ error highlights Jan. 6 mystery: Where was Kamala 3 Harris during the attack?, Politico (Nov. 4, 2021) https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/04/doj-kamala-harrisjan-6-519505.
the change in the superseding indictments. And, Ms. Cudd’s Indictment remained unremedied —presumably, because the defendant had already pleaded guilty to the Count as alleged.
SO-WHAT ABOUT THE J6 DETAINEES WHO ARE STILL BEING HELD?
Some defendants are still being detained in very hostile conditions in Washington DC prison, almost a year after being arrested for trespassing in areas that appeared to be open to public access.
And the punishments and consequences for the participants of January 6th seem especially unjust considering the massive agitation and criminal acts by Democrat-leaning groups over the past 5 years.
And now that we know that Pence was not even in the building, that really changes a lot. Or at least it would if Americans had any civil liberties which were recognized by the out-of-control US House Committee on Jan. 6th.
