Listening in to the Peter Harding arraignment. (THREAD)

Magistrate Judge Jeremiah McCarthy is presiding.
Criminal complaint against Harding is from DC District Court dated 1/11/21.
Harding is charged in a 2 count complaint from DC District - violating 18 usc 1752 (a)(1) and (a)(2) unlawfully being on federal grounds.
Second count is Title 40 USC 5104(e)(2)(c) violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. Max for both is 1.5 years and a fine.
Harding is represented by Jason DiPasquale and Jeremy Schwartz. He will be pleading not guilty.
Probation has 10 conditions of release recommended, and the Government consents to those. Harding's counsel objects to some of it because he contacted the FBI on his own and these are misdemeanors.
The Defendant left his house on 1/12 after his face was shown on the wanted poster and stayed with a friend. They are not asking for detention, but because he absented himself at that time, the govt believes monitoring is necessary.
The Defendant was in the Capitol on 1/6 to interfere with government, and he may do this again. He posted to Facebook things that expressed a desire to do it again. "We learned how strong our numbers are if we can take the Capitol there is nothing we can't accomplish."
Given Harding's desire to promote and engage in similar future conduct and disruptions to constitutional process, monitoring is reasonably necessary.
The government had to go looking for Harding after the FBI posted his picture, and this justifies monitoring per the govt. DiPasquale notes he was still in WNY and he did not flee when he learned of imminent charges. He cooperated with the FBI at arrest.
He owns a house in OP and Cheektowaga and has ties to the community. He is a lifelong resident of WNY. He has an adult daughter in the area and poses no flight risk. He has no prior history of rioting.
There are no allegations in the affidavit that he engaged in any destructive behavior while in the Capitol.
His intention was to protest peacefully and that he was non-violent while in the Capitol. Harding is self-employed in construction. Harding raises his hand to say something.
His lawyer tells him to be quiet. Judge rules: Electronic monitoring is reasonable. Mr. Harding is to travel only within WDNY and to the DC District but only for those court proceedings.
The judge adopts all of the probation recommendations. He must remain at a verifiable address, stay in WDNY, only travel to DC for court, no firearms allowed, avoid contact w potential witness/victim, abide by conditions of location monitoring program, has curfew, and will pay.
He must not tamper with monitoring. He will participate with computer monitoring, and inform them of any devices to which he has access and probation can install apps to monitor them.
Probation can review his computer and phone and hard drives whenever they want, and they can copy any media and peripherals. He will have to report within 72 hours to probation.
DC District has a return date next week at 1pm for Harding to appear via remote proceeding. Next Tuesday at 1pm is his DC District appearance.
/end

More from Law

This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:

Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”


Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:

“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”

This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”

Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”

Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.

She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“

Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”

Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
Pretty much every professional field EXCEPT police have clear, rigorous, transparent consequences for unethical behavior, negligence and malpractice.


The idea that we can "disbar" lawyers but not police is absolute foolishness.

All the factors that make disbarment a necessary tool for lawyers apply to cops... except that cops don't need to be qualified in the first place.

It is a rank absurdity of the criminal justice system that one needs to be educated and certified with a degree in order to argue on behalf of someone's life in court, but to have no qualifications necessary to detain, assault, or prematurely end that same life.

There are countless circumstances in which a lawyer's unethical behavior will result in them not only losing their job but never being able to practice it again.

But corrupt and murderous cops can be rehired indefinitely.

A lawyer's entire career can be ended forever if they were found to have knowingly put someone on a stand to lie.

Police officers however are allowed to lie in court on the stand under oath.

So much that lawyers aren't penalized for putting cops on the stand to lie.

You May Also Like

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"