January 6th Defendant Jake Lang was arrested in January 2021 and is currently sitting in the DC Gulag today after three years without trial.
In July Jake Lang notified The Gateway Pundit that he is taking his case to the highest court in the land.
Lang’s decision to move his arguments to the Supreme Court follows a split ruling in the DC Court of Appeals in April.
As reported by The Gateway Pundit, two of three judges on the appellate panel ruled against U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who dismissed the 1512 felony obstruction charge in three separate cases against January 6th defendants.
Perhaps most notable among the affected was Jacob Edward Lang — widely known by TGP readers through multiple eyewitness accounts of his repeated efforts to save lives during the onslaught of violence near the U.S. Capitol tunnel where Rosanne Boyland was killed.
The split ruling reinstated the felony obstruction charge against Lang and two others: Garret Miller, who pleaded guilty to 11 other criminal charges and was sentenced in February, and Joseph Fischer, who, like Lang, continues to await trial.
Lang, who is charged with multiple felonies, filed his petition to the United States Supreme Court —asking that the 1512 felony obstruction charge be dismissed.
The filing begins with a question:
“Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2), a statute crafted to prevent tampering with evidence in “official proceedings,” can be used to prosecute acts of violence against police officers in the context of a public demonstration that turned into a riot, resulting in so “breathtaking” an application of the statute as to run afoul of Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021).”
As was extensively detailed in The Gateway Pundit, the 1512 Felony Obstruction charge was repurposed specifically for January 6th defendants.
Although Lang’s filing specifically seeks clarification in a case such as his (where violence was involved), a SCOTUS ruling on the matter is likely to have far-reaching impact on hundreds of non-violent J6ers — Many of whom are currently facing the prospect of years in prison, along with the permanent loss of their 2nd Amendment rights.
The ruling will also have an impact on President Trump’s case and the bogus charges filed against the former US President.
The 1512 charge was a unique charge used by the DOJ to specifically target Jan. 6 protesters, many whose only crime was walking through the open door on the US Capitol and leaving the Capitol after several minutes. It is undeniably a political charge used only for Jan. 6 Trump supporters.
Attorney Norm Pattis, who, along with Steven Metcalf, filed the petition on behalf of Lang, says the current application of the 1512 statute is yet another example of government misuse of law as a means to “crush dissenters.”
“We are asking the court to step up and rein in an out-of-control Justice Department,” says Pattis.
Contribute to Jake’s Legal Fund HERE
READ the full petition below:
Now it appears the US Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case, possibly as soon as Friday.
NBC News reported:
The Supreme Court will soon consider whether to hear appeals brought by people charged with offenses relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol in cases that could have a major impact on the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
The justices are weighing three different appeals brought by defendants Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang and Garret Miller.
The court was scheduled to discuss the cases in their regular private meeting on Friday. But the meeting was canceled following the death of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
The justices will now consider the cases at a later date, possibly as soon as next Friday.
The three men are seeking to dismiss a charge accusing them of obstructing an official proceeding, namely the certification by Congress of President Joe Biden’s election victory, which was disrupted by a mob of Trump supporters.
Trump has been charged with the same offense, as well as others, in his federal election interference case. As a result, whether the court takes up the appeals or rejects them could affect his case.
