Now Reading
Judge Warns Oath Keeper Attorney His “Moralizing & Sermonizing” Won’t Be Tolerated

Judge Warns Oath Keeper Attorney His “Moralizing & Sermonizing” Won’t Be Tolerated

As January 6th defendants move through the court system, Judge Amit Mehta is running a tight ship. He’s not allowing them to get away with arguments that their charges are unconstitutional just because their case is somewhat unique, and he’s sure not allowing their attorneys to use what he calls “moralizing and sermonizing” to pad their filings.

[Photo by William Campbell/Corbis via Getty Images]

Kelly Meggs is charged with conspiracy, as well as obstruction of an official proceeding and destruction of government property, along with other related charges. His indictment describes him taking a major role in the planning and prepping for the attack on the Capitol, including participating in planning conversations, booking hotel rooms at multiple hotels for participants, and advising riot participants on what weapons they could get away with bringing (mace and batons, no guns) and suggesting body armor.

“DC is no guns. So mace and gas masks, some batons. If you have armor that’s good.”

Apparently, his attorneys have been incorporating conspiracy theories and other unrelated material into filings, and Mehta is over it.

According to BipartisanReport, Judge Mehta said that counsel for Meggs “is admonished to keep the moralizing and sermonizing out of his motions,” and advised that his motions should not include any references to his opinions on what the January 6th Committee is doing in their, separate, investigation, or about Oliver North, but should instead stick to the case at hand.

It’s not the first time Mehta has had to address this — according to Courthouse News, back in November responded to a request from attorneys Brad Geyer and Jonathon Moseley, who were representing Meggs and another Oath Keeper, Kenneth Harrelson, to file a 145-page complaint about “incessant and continual efforts” to ‘break’ the defendants and force them to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

See Also

That proposed filing included sections with titles like “SCOTUS Could Not Have Foreseen the Holocaust” and references to “forced medical experimentation on prisoners.”

Mehta told them any filing would need to be within the 45-page limit, but that first they’d have to provide evidence that the D.C. Department of Corrections was enforcing a mandatory vaccination policy, and warned, “The court will not allow this case to become a forum for bombastic arguments or propagating fringe views about Covid-19 or vaccinations.”

What's Your Reaction?
In Love
Not Sure

© 2021 Hillreporter.com

Scroll To Top