In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Song
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

FEDERAL COURT, August 4 -- On August 4, months after the DC Circuit's decision in US v. Munchel, DDC Judge Amit P. Mehta had before him Capitol breach defendant John Lolos, to change his plea to guilty. But Lolos said that a police officer told him, Come in. This was pushed into a break-out room, and Lolos was repeatedly told to not say things. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here:

Judge Mehta: Are there legal terms you do not understand? Lolos: Some might come up. Judge Mehta: Were you both in the US? Lolos: Yes. Judge Mehta: Do you wish to plea guilty to picketing or parading in the Capitol Building? Lolos: If you're saying it, yes.

Judge Mehta: The plea agreement is nine pages? Lolos: Yes. I have a request. On page 6, the 2d paragraph, it says I'm required to provide standard financial info. I can pay the fee. Why are my financials relevant to a misdemeanor case?

AUSA: This is a requirement and it will not be deleted. Judge Mehta: It will not be deleted. Do you still wish to proceed? Lolos: I just don't agree with it. Lies have been told, that I refused to give a utility bill. Judge Mehta: That was Pre-Trial Services

 Lolos: On page 4 of the statement, number 15, it says Lolos proceeded down a hallway. But a police officer said, Do you want to come in? He was motioning for me to come in. My attorney says it's in the video. [Note: DOJ is refusing Press requests for videos]

 AUSA: That is not in our agreement. I don't know what to do. Judge Mehta: He's saying it was consented to. Lolos: I just wanted to bring that forward for the record. A police officer said, Do you want to come in? Come in. He was waving at me. A Hispanic male.

AUSA: We can stop this right now, then. We can set this for trial. Defense lawyer: Can I talk to Mr. Lolos in a break out room?

 [After break out] Defense lawyer: He signed the statement & is not trying to change it. He might raise it again at sentencing. Judge Mehta: I can't remember where we left off... You've agreed to plea guilty, the maximum is 6 months in prison. Lolos: You mean jail?

 AUSA: To correct the agreement, it says supervised release but this is a Class B misdemeanor so it does not apply, under 18 USC 3559(a)(7), this is a petty offense. Lolos starts talking, and his lawyer cuts him off again, saying "This is not part of this hearing."

Judge Mehta: Has anyone promised you what my sentence is going to be? Lolos: I've have to say no.  Judge Mehta: I can require you to pay restitution. Lolos: Is there a maximum cap?

Judge Mehta: It's my decision. Lolos: Cap or not? Judge Mehta: Let me finish. Judge Mehta: What are the elements of the crime? AUSA: ..Entering, knowing he did not have permission... [But Lolos has said on the record a police officer told him, Come in, Come in...]

Inner City Press @innercitypress · 13m Judge Mehta: You are giving up a right to go to trial -- Lolos: Trial would be in Washington DC, right? Judge Mehta: Absent a ruling to the contrary. You'd be giving up your right to a jury, do you understand? Lolos: Yes, your Honor.

Judge Mehta: And you may lose rights -- Defense: I suggest, don't mention firearms, it will not go over well. Judge Mehta: There would be collateral consequences. Lolos: I would still like to vote and have firearms. Defense: Just answer the questions.

 Judge Mehta: Are you guilty? Lolos: Yes, I protested and picketed. Judge Mehta: How do you plead? Lolos: Guilty. [Entirely dodged: Lolos' statement on the record that a police officer said Come in, Come in. Knowledge of no permission is an element. Story later]

Judge Mehta: Sentencing Nov. 19. 11 am? Defense: Mr Lolos is on the West Coast. Lolos: If that's all you've got I'll take it.

Judge Mehta: 2 pm, then. Adjourned

Inner City Press also reported on US v. Jensen.

 Afterward, Inner City Press asked DOJ and then Judge Kelly for access to the videos that DOJ had shown to the court in the case: judicial documents that, under case law, must be made available to the public. But it was denied access, on the theory that Judge Kelly's order earlier in the month limited access to these judicial documents to a particular sub-set of the public.

 Inner City Press on July 27 wrote to Judge Kelly, including in the form of a motion, now on DocumentCloud, here. By noon the next day, July 28, nothing - no responses, no response. We'll have more on this. For now, podcast here; music video here.

Inner City Press live tweeted Riley June Williams on January 25, here. 

  From January 22, song here: Thread here.

 Inner City Press' John Earle Sullivan song on SoundCloud here. 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com