Today another motion for disclosure of grand jury proceedings was filed.
That's a joint pleading by 33 of the defendants. Fort and Lemon previously filed their joint motion and Shane Bollman filed his own motion as well.
Bollman is another journalist defendant, he's a photojournalist who was there just taking pictures. This is his motion which was filed in March.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/441/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/
Quoting a few sections from the latest motion.
On irregularities by DOJ.
III. LAW AND ARGUMENT
As demonstrated below, there are numerous concrete, non-speculative reasons to believe that the government provided the grand jury with profoundly misleading legal instruction; failed to ensure that the grand jury engaged in an individualized, defendant-by-defendant assessment of probable cause; engaged in improper, inflammatory commentary; and improperly rushed the grand jury’s deliberation due to the government’s hyperbolic claim of national emergency. Any of these grand jury abuses, separately or combined, risks an indictment so obviously obtained through infringement on the grand jury’s independence that it violates the Fifth Amendment and can provide grounds for dismissal.
On flawed instructions of the law.
A. There Is Reason to Believe the Government Provided the Grand Jury with Fundamentally Flawed Legal Instruction
The government has charged two narrow, complex statutes. However, the language in the superseding indictment itself (underscored by public comments made by DOJ officials) reveals that the government did not understand (or did not respect) the limited legal reach of these statutes. The government’s ignorance of (or disregard for) the elements of the offenses it charged makes it extremely likely that prosecutors, relying on their incorrect view of the law, provided fundamentally inaccurate legal instruction to the grand jury. Although courts rarely concern themselves with minor instructional errors in the grand jury—because it is rare for such errors to affect probable cause, much less fundamental fairness—significant, improper instruction, such as appears to have been given here, infringes on the grand jury’s independence and provides grounds for dismissal.
On how idiotic the indictment is. moo
3. The Superseding Indictment Language Reflecting the Government’s Legal Misconceptions
The government here chose to use a speaking indictment, setting forth detailed factual averments about the alleged crime. Thus, the superseding indictment reveals the specific conduct that the government claims violates the statutes. However, despite the detail, these allegations fail to establish many of the statutory elements of the offenses and appear to controvert many of the basic legal principles outlined above.8 The superseding indictment details 41 “overt acts,” which generally describe protestors organizing and promoting a demonstration to air grievances against the federal government. The allegations do not describe anyone discussing (let alone agreeing to) acts of violence or an intent to threaten anyone. They also do not describe any act of violence or any act intended to put another in fear of bodily harm. Nor do they include any act of rendering impassable ingress to or egress from the church. When those detailed factual allegations are compared to the statutory elements discussed above, it becomes manifest that the government has profoundly misunderstood (or intentionally misrepresented) the law in numerous critical ways and therefore is likely to have significantly misguided the grand jury. The error would have substantially influenced the decision to indict and would raise grave doubt that the grand jury’s decision was free from improper influence. See Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. at 256.
Just quoting the following subparagraph headings under the above paragraph.
a. The government incorrectly interprets § 241 to outlaw, without more, an agreement to disrupt a service at a church.
b. The government incorrectly interprets § 248(a)(2) to outlaw the disruption of a prayer service at a church (at least if the disruption is upsetting to others and/or involves even minor hindrance of another person’s movement).
c. The government incorrectly interprets “injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate” to encompass conduct that is disruptive and offensive, even absent an intent to advocate for force or violence, as required by Eighth Circuit law.
d. The government incorrectly interprets “physical obstruction” to include crowding an aisle, standing close to another person, or engaging in other conduct that falls far short of the complete or near-complete obstruction required by the statute.
e. The government misunderstands (or ignores) its duty to conduct an individualized assessment of each defendant’s conduct with respect to each charge.
f. The legal misinterpretations in the superseding indictment are shared by the highest officials in the Department of Justice.
