The DC Court of Appeals gave a figurative slap to District Court Judge Reggie Walton on Friday, for his Stasi-like overreach when sentencing a defendant from January 6. Daniel Goldwyn, a Texas resident, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of trespassing at the US Capitol on January 31, 2023. Compare this to the treatment of the Karen mob that disrupted Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, or Antifa which sacked many American cities in the summer of 2021.
Goldwyn’s problem began when he appeared on Tucker Carlson’s FoxNews program on March 14th, less than two months after entering his guilty plea, to discuss the plight of J6 inmates. On January 6, he referred to a website. He also mentioned GiveSendGo, but that’s another story.
Walton lectured Goodwyn about his Carlson appearance when Goodwyn appeared at his sentencing on June 6, 2023.
After entering a guilty plea, the defendant appears on Tucker Carlson’s show within a few months. Carlson, sadly, has become a lightning rod for controversy and has said or done things that I believe have caused division. He had a goal in mind when he invited the defendant to appear on the show. It was to create the impression that those who were charged with crimes about the events of January 6, ’21, had been unfairly treated. I don’t see any evidence to support that.
He tried to minimize not only the behavior of the defendant but also the other people who were prosecuted because of what happened that day. Counsel suggests that the defendant had no opportunity to correct the record. He did not attempt to correct the records. Carlson’s claim that the defendant had done nothing more than walk around the Capitol for less than one minute before leaving was simply not true. This misinformation is being spread to the American people and has contributed to the current discord in the country regarding the presidential election on January 6th. Some people claim that those who were prosecuted and who are currently being detained because of this are political prisoners. There is nothing to support that claim.
Goodwyn received a 60-day sentence in prison, a fine of $2,500, and $500 as restitution. He was also given 12 months of supervision. It got interesting.
Also, I’d require him to participate in mental health treatment, if it’s deemed necessary, and to remain in this treatment until the probation department no longer deems it necessary.
I thought that psychiatric punishment was a thing of the past.
Walton then imposed monitoring on wrongthinkers.
Since he used social media to disseminate what I consider disinformation, I’d require him to allow his computer to be monitored and inspected by the probation department to determine if he was disseminating any information that had anything to do with the events of January 6, 2021.
Goodwyn petitioned to have his computer, phone, and passport returned when he was released from prison. The FBI had seized them during his arrest. Walton returned the passport but allowed the FBI to keep the electronic devices.
Goodwyn appealed at some point, probably around the time he was released from prison. He was subjected to a probation condition that required him to submit his computer and phone to a federal flunky’s monitoring. This appeal was decided by the court on February 1, and it was filed on March 26, 2009.
After considering the brief of the appellant, the motion for remand, and the opposition to it, including a request to remove the special condition of supervision that subjected the appellant to computer surveillance and searches.
ORDERED that the computer-monitoring condition be vacated and the case be remanded for further proceedings. The district court erred in imposing the computer-monitoring condition without considering whether it was “reasonably related” to the relevant sentencing factors and involved “no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to achieve the purposes behind sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); see United States v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d 233, 242–46 (D.C. Cir. 2010). If the district court decides on remand to impose a new computer-monitoring condition, “it should explain its reasoning,” “develop the record in support of its decision,” and ensure that the condition accords with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and constitutional protections. Burroughs, 613 F.3d at 246.
Walton is a federal judge who has taken on the role of Roland Feisler concerning J6 defendants. Walton has a history with Goodwyn. See Federal judge berates Riot suspect who refuses mask: “When did you attend medical school?” Walton was annoyed by Goodwyn’s continued use of the phrase, “his truth” on Tucker Carlson’s show.
The order shows the Justice Department’s complete impunity in its pursuit against the January 6th defendants. Michael Sherwin, a Justice Department official, proudly stated in a TV interview that, “our office wanted to shock and awe…it worked because we saw from media posts that people are afraid to return to D.C., because they’re like, ‘If they go there, they’re going to get charged.'”
Sherwin’s pledge to use such harsh measures to send a clear message to other citizens of the country was lauded. Sherwin is no longer with the Justice Department but is a partner of Kobre & Kim.
The surveillance of the computers shows that the Justice Department is still acting with impunity. This is especially true when judges sign off such orders blithely.
The conditions of release were not unusual when compared to other court orders that had been applied to J6 defendants.
Kelly stated that Jensen was released from prison on July 13 after a “close call.” The judge at the time said that he believed Jensen’s assertions, that he was deceived after being in jail since Jan. 8 and he realized it.
Jensen agreed that he would abide by any conditions imposed by the judge, such as not using the Internet, or Internet-capable gadgets, including his cellphone. The court wanted to distinguish Jensen’s views from those of the far-right QAnon theory. This false claim, that a cabal of Satan-worshiping “global elites”, and “deep-state” international child sex traffickers were plotting to overthrow Trump, could incite violence among its followers.
Two weeks after Jensen was released, a court supervisor officer discovered him alone in his home garage, streaming right-wing news to an iPhone with WiFi, according to court documents. Prosecutors then moved to revoke Jensen’s bail.
Jensen admitted later that he spent two days also watching a “cyber-symposium” hosted by pillow magnate Mike Lindell to propagate false claims about the 2020 election being hacked for President Biden.
Jensen’s lawyer Christopher M. Davis said on Thursday that it may seem “Orwellian,” that a person in his garage can be sent to jail for broadcasting the news. However, Davis admitted that Jensen violated the plain order of the judge.
The only thing unusual about this case is that a unanimous panel — Gregory Katsas (Trump), Naomi Rao (Trump), and Bradley Garcia (Biden) — of the DC Circuit decided that a misdemeanor defendant could not have his choice of reading materials put under court supervision.
