Many new events have occurred since the August 9th email shared in the latest article about MSG (Ret) Jeremy Brown was written.
According to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43(b)2, it is Jeremy Brown’s right to choose to continue the misdemeanor hearing either in absentia at all or by video (Zoom) if he does not want to appear in person.
The US government is trying to fight Brown’s right to choose not to appear in person, and the reasons given mainly focus on the importance of personal assessment. of Brown’s attitude necessary-although Rule 43(b)2 expressly states that for misdemeanor offenses punishable by one year or less, a person has the right to choose not to appear at all.
A motion to grant Brown a trial by Zoom was denied by Judge Mehta, even though the Sept. 4 trial was a bench trial and not a jury trial.
In a decision that flies in the face of judicial economy, Mehta ordered Brown to be transferred from the Citrus County Detention Facility in Florida to the DC gulag, where Brown is currently being held. with the general population and not in protective custody with other J6ers.
I have spoken to Brown and he has confirmed that the conditions in which he is being held are “dirty and prison-like.”
Why did Judge Mehta believe it was necessary to use government resources to bring whistleblower Jeremy Brown to DC to stand trial and his actions were only assessed by Mehta for two misdemeanors?
The transcript of the hearing where this decision was made by Mehta is not yet available, but it is reported that Mehta indicated that it was important for HIM to assess Brown’s attitude personally and that he wanted to see his face.
(And, for what it’s worth, Ray Epps was allowed to attend the sentencing by a DC judge for his plea deal via Zoom.)
Why did Judge Mehta, before denying Brown’s right to choose not to appear in person under Rule 43(b) 2, also denied Brown’s motion to stay the misdemeanor trial while there was a pending appeal of Brown’s current conviction. time, and that the validity of the search warrant is questioned? A search warrant similar to that in question is relevant to the misdemeanor trial, and therefore must remain granted until the conclusion of the appeal.
Why is the US Government insisting on bringing Brown to DC for trial that just a few weeks ago they tried to eliminate through a plea deal? Brown believes that he has moved to DC unnecessarily with the intention of deliberately putting people in harm’s way.
Why would the government go to the trouble, time, and expense to ensure that Brown is in DC for a trial that he has indicated he would rather see go?
How (above) is this not an abuse of our justice system? Why is the US government reacting this way to two MISDEMEANOR charges, which only a few weeks ago, gave approval to this whistleblower?
Former Green Beret Jeremy Brown was told that if he rejects the plea deal, the government will consider adding ADDITIONAL charges.
Now it looks like they’re preparing to charge him with seditious conspiracy or some other felony charge that will ensure continued sentencing proceedings for Brown.
What does “hundreds of messages in various Oath Keepers Signal chats” have to do with proving beyond a doubt the alleged misdemeanors? Where is this from?
Why is the government, 3 1/2 years after January 6, and after Brown has spent over 1000 days behind bars, a plea deal on trespassing charges that come with the threat of additional charges if the deal is not accepted?
Although Brown was labeled a co-conspirator unindicted along with other Oath Keepers who were charged with felonies, Brown was only charged with two misdemeanors.
However, it is clear that the US Government is seeking to abuse the judicial process by trying to try Brown on charges other than the wrongdoing that will take place on September 4.
As Jeremy Brown often says, “Process is punishment.”
The US government appears to be using whatever it can find in its arsenal to keep Brown from speaking on the record at trial.
Why? Because, unlike other J6 political prisoners, Brown is also a whistleblower who released a recording of a conversation with two JTTF FBI agents who tried to recruit him as a secret human source in the days leading up to January 6, 2021.
The tapes are available for public hearing, which gives the Government a motive to target Brown for blowing the whistle.
The audio recordings of JTTF agents are evidence that shows the involvement of federal agents in the events of January 6th, and allowing this evidence to be recorded in court will undermine the US Government’s argument that those who have been and continue to be prosecuted, tortured, and punished at the hands of our own government are “insurgents.” “.
The tapes were not allowed to be heard by the jury when Brown was tried and convicted on weapons charges for the unconstitutional raid on his home, when a grenade was “discovered” in the same way a pipe bomb was “discovered” on January 6.
They “found” exactly where they planted as part of the set. Forensic analysis supports Brown’s claim that the grenade he “found” was not his; but the DNA of the two boys IS on the grenade. WHO’S DNA is it? It wasn’t Brown.
The US government didn’t ask if they didn’t want the answer to be known.
Therefore, even though Brown’s home invasion has been labeled a domestic terrorism investigation, and even though Brown was branded an unindicted co-conspirator in the Oath Keeper trial (who tried unsuccessfully to join the misdemeanor case), MSG (Ret.) Jeremy Brown was never interrogated by members of law enforcement.
Jeremy Brown did not kill himself.
Brown reportedly plans to represent himself pro se on September 4 before Judge Mehta.
While the government continues to try to argue that the retired 20-year decorated combat veteran is a domestic terrorist threat, it should be remembered that the FBI reported in mid-January 2021 that Brown was not a threat, even noting that he had never entered the Capitol. (see below)
