A federal judge on Wednesday found that the “selective prosecution” of far-right groups without charging their far-left counterparts for the same acts is “constitutionally impermissible.”
U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney of southern California therefore dismissed charges against two men from the “white nationalist” Rise Above Movement (RAM) who violently clashed with members of the far-left group Antifa at three southern California pro-Trump events in 2017.
In his 35-page order, the judge stressed the importance of equal protection under the law. He said that although the two men may have been involved in violent acts, prosecutors were wrong to exclusively target them without also pursuing charges against Antifa members implicated in similar violent actions at political events.
“Such selective prosecution leaves the troubling impression that the government believes speech on the left more deserving of protection than speech on the right,” Judge Carney wrote.
The judge said that the fundamental principles of the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble are the “bedrock” of the United States. This is not always easy, he added, noting that sometimes, people use that right to “spread vitriolic and hateful ideas and beliefs.”
“While Defendants openly promoted ideas the Court finds reprehensible, and likely committed violence for which they deserve to be prosecuted, this case is about something more important. It is about upholding the free speech and assembly rights guaranteed to all of us,” Judge Carney wrote.
“It does not matter who you are or what you say. It does not matter whether you are a supporter of All Lives Matter or a supporter of Black Lives Matter,” he continued. “It does not matter whether you are a Zionist professor or part of Students for Justice in Palestine. It does not matter whether you are a member of RAM or Antifa. All are the same under the Constitution, and all receive its protections.”
Anti-Riot Act Charges
The alleged violence at the heart of the case happened during former President Donald Trump’s first year in the White House, during the four months spanning from March to June 2017.
Prosecutors charged the two men, Robert Rundo, the founder of RAM, and Robert Boman, one of the group’s members, under a federal anti-riot statute in 2018.
The men were accused of engaging in acts of violence at pro-Trump events in southern California, specifically in Huntington Beach, Berkeley, and San Bernardino.
Judge Carney dismissed their charges in 2019 but following an appeal, the charges were reinstated in 2021.
With the matter back in the district court, Mr. Rundo and Mr. Boman filed two motions to dismiss the case, arguing that the use of the Anti-Riot Act was unconstitutionally vague and that they were selectively prosecuted and not given equal treatment under the law.
Judge Carney rejected the first motion, asserting that the alleged conduct of the men clearly falls within the scope of the Anti-Riot Act.
“Though there may be questions in another case as to what constitutes a violation of the Anti-Riot Act, this is not that case,” he wrote. “Defendants clearly used a facility of interstate commerce shortly before they engaged in riotous activity as proscribed by the Anti-Riot Act.”
A supporter of U.S. President Trump marches during the “” rally in Huntington Beach, Calif., on March 25, 2017.
Turning it into "All Lives Matter" vs "Black Lives Matter" determines the judge is still compromised.
All Lives Matter is racially and sexually inclusive in all angles; it's only because they wanted to turn it into a "gotcha, evil bigot!" that they pushed so hard on that.
sure, lemme explain it like this:
the Big point, of the Q operation, the main objective right now, is to wake up people that are basically apolitical.. people that aren't really paying attention to much of anything. This isn't for US. we already know how rotten the system is., our "job" is to assist in waking people up atm.. and later on "something else", which I think involves rebuilding.
with that in Mind, we know that these "right wing" groups are really just glowies, and basically cointelpro. if you were to Share that link with your unawake friends, they are just going to see it as you supporting these racist (fake ) groups, they will just see it as retaliation. "white supremacy is protected under the constitution", all that is really happening is amplifying the idea that Conservatives, /right wingers are all just racists.
there was zero reason for the judge to mention any of those groups, he could have just said "hey antifa are being violent, and need to be arrested" instead of saying .. that statement " “It does not matter whether you are a Zionist professor or part of Students for Justice in Palestine. It does not matter whether you are a member of RAM or Antifa. All are the same under the Constitution, and all receive its protections.”
it is, and has been a common tactic of the left to say communism is protected free speech, and to resist outlawing it.
maybe i'm overreacting, , but I think it smells bad, I think it plays into their plan to just divide people more.
A federal judge on Wednesday found that the “selective prosecution” of far-right groups without charging their far-left counterparts for the same acts is “constitutionally impermissible.” U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney of southern California therefore dismissed charges against two men from the “white nationalist” Rise Above Movement (RAM) who violently clashed with members of the far-left group Antifa at three southern California pro-Trump events in 2017.
In his 35-page order, the judge stressed the importance of equal protection under the law. He said that although the two men may have been involved in violent acts, prosecutors were wrong to exclusively target them without also pursuing charges against Antifa members implicated in similar violent actions at political events.
“Such selective prosecution leaves the troubling impression that the government believes speech on the left more deserving of protection than speech on the right,” Judge Carney wrote.
The judge said that the fundamental principles of the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble are the “bedrock” of the United States. This is not always easy, he added, noting that sometimes, people use that right to “spread vitriolic and hateful ideas and beliefs.”
“While Defendants openly promoted ideas the Court finds reprehensible, and likely committed violence for which they deserve to be prosecuted, this case is about something more important. It is about upholding the free speech and assembly rights guaranteed to all of us,” Judge Carney wrote.
“It does not matter who you are or what you say. It does not matter whether you are a supporter of All Lives Matter or a supporter of Black Lives Matter,” he continued. “It does not matter whether you are a Zionist professor or part of Students for Justice in Palestine. It does not matter whether you are a member of RAM or Antifa. All are the same under the Constitution, and all receive its protections.”
Anti-Riot Act Charges The alleged violence at the heart of the case happened during former President Donald Trump’s first year in the White House, during the four months spanning from March to June 2017. Prosecutors charged the two men, Robert Rundo, the founder of RAM, and Robert Boman, one of the group’s members, under a federal anti-riot statute in 2018.
The men were accused of engaging in acts of violence at pro-Trump events in southern California, specifically in Huntington Beach, Berkeley, and San Bernardino.
Judge Carney dismissed their charges in 2019 but following an appeal, the charges were reinstated in 2021. With the matter back in the district court, Mr. Rundo and Mr. Boman filed two motions to dismiss the case, arguing that the use of the Anti-Riot Act was unconstitutionally vague and that they were selectively prosecuted and not given equal treatment under the law. Judge Carney rejected the first motion, asserting that the alleged conduct of the men clearly falls within the scope of the Anti-Riot Act.
“Though there may be questions in another case as to what constitutes a violation of the Anti-Riot Act, this is not that case,” he wrote. “Defendants clearly used a facility of interstate commerce shortly before they engaged in riotous activity as proscribed by the Anti-Riot Act.”
A supporter of U.S. President Trump marches during the “” rally in Huntington Beach, Calif., on March 25, 2017.
However, the judge agreed with their second motion’s argument ………..it continues. https://ntd.com/prosecution-of-far-right-but-not-antifa-for-same-riots-constitutionally-impermissible-judge_974849.html
Good summary, thanks.
Turning it into "All Lives Matter" vs "Black Lives Matter" determines the judge is still compromised.
All Lives Matter is racially and sexually inclusive in all angles; it's only because they wanted to turn it into a "gotcha, evil bigot!" that they pushed so hard on that.
About damn time
this is bait. , far right white supremacy group??? " the Rise Above Movement? you mean Glowies??? don't defend these people. this is a trick.
How is it a trick when the judge said that both should be equally prosecuted for the same things? ⚖️
sure, lemme explain it like this: the Big point, of the Q operation, the main objective right now, is to wake up people that are basically apolitical.. people that aren't really paying attention to much of anything. This isn't for US. we already know how rotten the system is., our "job" is to assist in waking people up atm.. and later on "something else", which I think involves rebuilding.
with that in Mind, we know that these "right wing" groups are really just glowies, and basically cointelpro. if you were to Share that link with your unawake friends, they are just going to see it as you supporting these racist (fake ) groups, they will just see it as retaliation. "white supremacy is protected under the constitution", all that is really happening is amplifying the idea that Conservatives, /right wingers are all just racists.
there was zero reason for the judge to mention any of those groups, he could have just said "hey antifa are being violent, and need to be arrested" instead of saying .. that statement " “It does not matter whether you are a Zionist professor or part of Students for Justice in Palestine. It does not matter whether you are a member of RAM or Antifa. All are the same under the Constitution, and all receive its protections.”
it is, and has been a common tactic of the left to say communism is protected free speech, and to resist outlawing it.
maybe i'm overreacting, , but I think it smells bad, I think it plays into their plan to just divide people more.
It looks good. I hope it is indeed a sign of things to come
Nearly four years after the fact. It's wild and scary how many "normal" people can't see the extreme difference in treatment here.
Tide is slowly turning. Sensible ruling by a judge, equal treatment for ALL.