Mediaboss Marketing

Washington An alleged member of the Patriot Boys militia group charged with multiple crimes stemming from the January 6 Capitol attack said he would plead guilty to one felonycount of assaulting officers with a pole on Monday after prosecutors said they made an "unintentional" procedural error since initially charging him.

Lucas Denney of Texas was accused of multiple felonies via criminal complaint, a charging document does not require the consensus of a Grand Jury, in December of 2021. Court documents alleged he grabbed a large tube outside the Capitol building and swung it at officers before he made his way to a large police line inside the west tunnel of the Capitol.

Denney was arrested and detained and has remained in jail since December.

Under the Speedy Trial Act, a formal indictment must be brought by a grand jury against any defendant within 40 days of criminal complaint. But in Denney's case, prosecutors failed to do so, instead indicting him on a single count of assaulting or impeding officers on March 7, 2021, months after his initial arrest in December.

His defense team filed an emergency motion to release him from jail because of the law violation.

"Each day Mr. Denney remains in custodial detention is an additional day that his liberty rights are denied without due process in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment," Denney's defense attorneys wrote, "Mr. Denney should not be made to sit in a jail cell even a single day longer while the Government tries to explain away its failure to comply with the law."

In a rare move, prosecutors agreed that they made a mistake in not bringing the indictment quick enough and said Denney should be released and the charges dropped, but asked the judge to do so in a manner that allowed them to present Denney's case to a Grand Jury again. This would leave the possibility of another indictment looming.

The charges alleged were serious and their error was "unintentional," the government said, so they should be given another shot to potentially indict Denney.

"The charges against Denney are of the utmost seriousness. Those charges arise within the context of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, on January 6, 2021, a criminal offense unparalleled in American history," Monday's filing said.

"There is no evidence of bad faith, a pattern of neglect, or something more than an isolated incident that resulted from a number of unfortunate factors," prosecutors added.

But during a court hearing Monday that was initially scheduled as an arraignment where Denney would be given the opportunity to enter a plea on the single count charged in the indictment, his defense attorney William Shipley alleged the government brought the indictment in "bad faith" after he said they were sent scrambling to get an indictment on the books following their procedural error.

And in yet another unusual move, the attorney indicated his client was ready to admit guilt and plead guilty to the single count on the indictment without entering into an agreement with the government, a move that would effectively prevent prosecutors from bringing any more charges against their client due to double jeopardy rules.

Most of the more than 220 guilty pleas entered in the January 6 investigation have involved cooperation or other legal agreements with the government to avoid going to trial.

"Mr. Denney is here, prepared to admit his conduct and plead guilty to the only pending charge," Shipley told Judge Randolph Moss. The defense told the judge they viewed the evidence against their client and said he was ready to admit guilt to one count.

The judge agreed with the defense that Denney had been mistreated, even telling prosecutors, "There's no excuse to treat a person like that." But he stopped short of allowing the defendant to plead guilty on Monday, explaining he needed more time to examine the case law. This was a novel predicament prosecutors got themselves into, the judge reasoned, and he needed more time to rule accurately.

Defense attorney Shipley objected to the proposed delay, telling the judge he feared the government would use the schedule as a way to return a more extensive indictment against his client.

Prosecutor Jennifer Rozzoni told the judge, however, that after discussing the case with a supervisor, the government would not oppose Denney's surprise decision to enter a guilty plea to assaulting an officer with a pole on January 6.

The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment for this story.

"We appreciated the government conceding its error and acknowledging Mr. Denney's right to plead guilty and will rely on Judge Moss's judgment at sentencing," Shipley told CBS News.

Denney's arraignment, where he will likely plead guilty to the lesser count, is now set for Thursday.

Original post:
January 6 defendant says he will plead guilty to assaulting officers after prosecutors admit error - CBS News

A juror in Ghislaine Maxwells criminal trial who apparently did not disclose childhood sexual abuse during jury selection will invoke his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination at an 8 March hearing.

This juror, who is named Scotty David, was on 24 February ordered to appear in court for questioning about his answers on a screening questionnaire for then-prospective jurors.

Davids completed questionnaire, which was made public last week, shows that he marked the no box in response to the question that asked: Have you or a friend ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?

The fact that David apparently marked no has spurred extensive controversy as he has claimed in post-trial interviews that he was victimized in his youth.

The British former socialite Maxwell was convicted on 29 December on sex trafficking and other related charges for facilitating financier Jeffrey Epsteins sexual abuse of minor girls, some just 14 years old.

Epstein, a convicted sex offender whose associates once included rich and powerful figures such as Prince Andrew, was apprehended in July 2019 for sex trafficking of minor teens. Epstein killed himself about one month later while jailed in Manhattan awaiting trial.

The controversy surrounding David took off after Maxwells trial.

David claimed in media interviews that he endured sexual abused in childhood. David said that he told other jurors about this abuse enabling them to understand facts from a victims perspective. When those reports emerged, prosecutors asked judge Alison Nathan to conduct an inquiry into his comments. Maxwells legal team made that request shortly thereafter.

Nathan agreed to do so, writing in her recent decision: Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection.

She said: Juror 50s post-trial statements are clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, non-speculative impropriety namely, a false statement during jury selection has occurred.

In a letter to Nathan filed Wednesday morning, Davids lawyer, Todd Spodek, said: I write to inform the court that Juror 50 will invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing.

Prosecutors responded shortly thereafter, saying in a letter that they would try to compel Davids testimony.

The government writes to notify the court that it is in the process of seeking internal approval to seek an order compelling Juror 50s testimony at the hearing, they said. The government will, subject to internal approval, submit a proposed order to the court in advance of the hearing.

View post:
Ghislaine Maxwell trial juror to plead fifth amendment at hearing - The Guardian

Myles Cosgrove also won't testify in Hankison trial citing 5th Amendment rights

Updated: 3:20 PM EST Feb 28, 2022

It looks like neither ex-LMPD officer who fired shots along with Brett Hankison the night Breonna Taylor died will testify at his trial.The trial for Hankison, who was indicted on wanton endangerment charges, began last week.The night Taylor was killed by gunfire in March 2020, three officers pulled their triggers -- Hankison, John Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove.Both were set to take the stand, but Mattingly invoked his Fifth Amendment right before the trial began, and now, Cosgrove is doing the same.In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and protects against self-incrimination.On Monday, both attorneys agreed and a judge ruled that he "does have a legitimate Fifth Amendment privilege that then makes him an unavailable witness for the purposes of our trial."The trial resumes on Tuesday.Trial coverage:Day 1 - Breonna Taylor's neighbor recounts bullets whizzing through his apartmentDay 2 -Jurors hear his interview from days after Breonna Taylor raidDay 3 - Jurors taken to Breonna Taylor's apartment

It looks like neither ex-LMPD officer who fired shots along with Brett Hankison the night Breonna Taylor died will testify at his trial.

The trial for Hankison, who was indicted on wanton endangerment charges, began last week.

The night Taylor was killed by gunfire in March 2020, three officers pulled their triggers -- Hankison, John Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove.

Both were set to take the stand, but Mattingly invoked his Fifth Amendment right before the trial began, and now, Cosgrove is doing the same.

In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and protects against self-incrimination.

On Monday, both attorneys agreed and a judge ruled that he "does have a legitimate Fifth Amendment privilege that then makes him an unavailable witness for the purposes of our trial."

The trial resumes on Tuesday.

Trial coverage:

See the original post:
Myles Cosgrove also won't testify in Hankison trial citing 5th Amendment rights - WLKY Louisville

The Tech Executive-1 in John Durhams indictment of a Democratic cybersecurity lawyer testified in a lawsuit that he had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when asked to testify by the special counsel.

Rodney Joffe, former senior vice president at Neustar, coordinated in 2016 with Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who was indicted last year for allegedly concealing his clients, including Hillary Clinton's campaign and Joffe, from the FBI in September 2016 when he pushed debunked claims of a secret back channel between the Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank.

Alfa Bank filed a John Doe lawsuit and deposed Joffe in February. A common refrain from Joffe was: As a result of the ongoing investigation of the Office of the Special Counsel, on the advice of my counsel, Im going to decline to answer the question on the basis of my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

They did serve me with a grand jury subpoena, and I did invoke my Fifth Amendment rights, Joffe said, saying that the subpoena was for testimony and documents and that the subpoenas came after a request for an interview.

Joffe said Sussmann became an attorney for Neustar around 2010, and it continued until September when the indictment occurred. He pleaded the Fifth on whether Sussmann ever represented him personally. Joffe said he retired in mid-September.

Sussmann pleaded not guilty, with Durham revealing last month he has evidence Joffe exploited DNS internet traffic at Trump Tower, Donald Trumps Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President.

CLINTON CONDEMNS 'CONSPIRACY THEORIES' RELATED TO DURHAM INVESTIGATION

Durham said in October that Joffe exploited his own companys access to the sensitive internet data of a high-ranking executive branch office of the U.S. government, both before and after the Presidential election." Joffe pleaded the Fifth when asked to identify the executive office. Joffes attorney said "that should not be interpreted as an admission that the ... allegations, which are just allegations in the indictment, are accurate.

Joffe said he had never heard of the Alfa Bank allegations prior to the summer of 2016.

When asked if it was possible to cause pings from a DNS perspective to make it look like a communication, he said, I have no idea. He denied manipulating the DNS data in the Alfa Bank allegations or creating false pings.

Durhams indictment of Sussmann alleged Joffe tasked researchers with mining internet data to establish a narrative tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. Durham said Joffe indicated he was doing this to please Clinton campaign VIPs."

Joffe said he was not paid by Clinton's campaign. He declined to say whether Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias or Fusion GPS were present when he discussed the Alfa Bank allegations with Sussmann in July 2016 and said he had never heard of Fusion before 2016.

Durham said that, shortly after Clintons loss, Joffe wrote in an email: "I was tentatively offered the top [cybersecurity] job by the Democrats when it looked like they'd win. I definitely would not take the job under Trump."

Joffe testified, Ive never been interested in politics. Ive never been involved in politics. ... I havent donated to any parties or given any kind of benefit to any parties, but I certainly over the last few years have had an interest in the politics of the country I live in. Joffe pleaded the Fifth on his thoughts about Trump.

He appears to have referred to himself as Max in a 2018 article pushing the Alfa Bank claims. Max described himself as a John McCain Republican. Joffe declined to say whether that was him.

Joffe claimed he did not anticipate holding any job in the Clinton administration and was not offered the top cybersecurity job if Democrats won. Joffe said he had no possible interest in joining Clinton's administration.

He denied knowing British ex-spy Christopher Steele and said he "had no firsthand knowledge" when asked if he knew Sussmann met with Steele about Alfa Bank claims.

Joffe also declined to answer which businesses he owns, and whether he knew the identity of a person dubbed "Originator-1," who Durham says collaborated with Joffe on the Alfa Bank claims. It is April Lorenzen of Zetalytics.

Joffe said Neustar has provided DNS data outside the company in the past, including "a set of DNS data that has no terms and conditions around it, and that data is provided to a number of parties including security researchers. He declined to say whether he believed DNS data is nonconfidential.

Joffe also said, I take the Fifth, when asked if he knows Daniel Jones, lead author of the Senate Intelligence Committees report on the CIAs interrogation program who founded the Democracy Integrity Project in January 2017. Tax records show he funded Steele, Fusion, and others.

Court records show Jones was asked by the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2017 to look into Alfa Bank allegations, and his 2018 report concluded that "there was a special relationship between the Trump Organization server and servers associated with Alfa Bank.

Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham wrote that "the allegation that this proves a secret connect between Alfa Bank and a Trump server is clearly false.

Joffe said Kirk McConnell is the only person with the Senate committee he could recall.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The special counsel has said Sussmann claimed to another agency, believed to be the CIA, in February 2017 that data he had access to demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House. Durham found "no support for these allegations." Joffe declined to answer whether Neustar provided the Russian phone data to university researchers.

Joffe testified he had gone through chemotherapy and used the drug Prednisone, claiming: I still have, you know, some effect with memory so, you know, my memory during the period when I was ill, which was from 2012 through 2017.

More here:
'Tech Exec-1' says he pleaded the Fifth to John Durham's grand jury - Washington Examiner

Cade Cothren, speaking on phone, attends a meeting with lawmakers and fellow staffers on the balcony ouside the House chamber on April 29, 2019. (Erik Schelzig, Tenenssee Journal)

Cade Cothren, the onetime chief of staff to former House Speaker Glen Casada, intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination at a Registry of Election Finance hearing on Wednesday, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports.

Cade Cothren objects to and will not respond to your subpoena, his attorney, Cynthia A. Sherwood, wrote to the Registry last month. This objection is based on the grounds that these subpoenas were made in bad faith and are an abuse of process.

Furthermore, she added, Mr. Cothren invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The probe involves the role of the Faith Family Freedom Fund in attacking then-Rep. Rick Tillis of Lewisburg during his Republican primary in 2020. The PACs treasurer testified to the Registry by telephone in January that she had registered the group on behalf of Cothren, whom she had been dating at the time. Friedopfer said she had been young and dumb and didnt know she would be liable for the PACs activities. Cothrenadvised her not to respond to a Registry audit of the PAC, she said.

The Registry responded by issuing subpoenas of Cothren, Casada, and the winning candidate in the 2020 race, Rep. Todd Warner (R-Chapel Hill).

See the article here:
Cothren to take the Fifth in Registry probe TNJ - TN Journal