[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-17-2021).]

WELL THIS COULD GET VERY INTERESTING



https://townhall.com/tipshe...stitutional-n2595889

"During a lengthy hearing Wednesday for the conspiracy case involving 18 members of the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia asked about the determinations prosecutors used to file a felony charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress."

“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’?” Mehta said, "And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’?”

............................................................................................................................

Apparently THIS may be the source of Judge Mehta's problem:

1730. Protection Of Government Processes -- "Official Proceeding" Requirement -- 18 U.S.C. 1512

Congress limits the coverage of § 1512 to official proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1) defines "official proceeding" as:
A.a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Claims Court, or a Federal grand jury;
B.a proceeding before the Congress; or
C.a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or
D.a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce.

This definition is in large part, a restatement of the judicial interpretation of the word "proceeding" in §§ 1503 and 1505. However the case law interpreting these provisions also required that the proceeding had to be pending. See this Manual at 1722 and 1727. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 does away with the pending proceeding requirement for judicial matters and matters within the jurisdiction of Congress and Federal agencies. In the words of § 1512, "an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 1512(e)(1). See United States v. Scaife, 749 F.2d 338 (6th Cir. 1984). See also United States v. Shively, 927 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1991).

...........................................................................................................................................................

Our laws MUST HAVE CERTAINTY

The legal system needs to permit those subject to the law to regulate their conduct with certainty and to protect those subject to the law from arbitrary use of state power.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-17-2021).]