Subscribed and welcome back! I had a question (specifically wanted to ask you) regarding the 18 U.S. Code §§ 1512 (c)(2),2. When I looked it up here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512, it says - "Whoever corruptly otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." Do I have this correct?
You are reading that correctly but §1512 is somewhat hard to prove based in part of the “Criminal Intent” do I think Gold & Strand should have been indicted with that statute, absolutely but I also would not be surprised if there’s a Superseder in the not to distant future for both. Because I could see Prosectors seeking a SR1 to add wire fraud and interstate commerce charges too. Hope my answers makes sense and thanks for finding me. Because I remembered our chats about Dr Gold
Because if you look at the original indictment and the original Complaint but specifically the text of the affidavit - it certainly seems like Gold & Strand could face more charges and that would Require a Grand Jury to hand down a Superseding indictment- I personally think investigators (again thats my opinion not necessarily represented as facts in the current docket) are looking further into the finances of both Gold & Strand and that’s largely my rationale for a SR1 because Gold was appointed counsel qualifying under the Ts & Cs of CJA but that’s why I honed in on her defense fund grift https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YV0EJCL_pNtB2wH-8LJlUlrA8AVum7Vz/view?usp=drivesdk
Thank you Filey! Takes a lawyer's eye on this stuff and we thank you. I believe after the verdict is handed down Gold should lose her medical license. If not for this, then what?
Preliminary Hearing set for 3/5/2021. What exactly does this mean? Is this in front of the Grand Jury? How long do you expect this case will take before a guilty/not guilty verdict is rendered?
This mean the hearing will be 3/5/21. Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey: VTC Initial Appearance/Detention Hearing as to JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) and SIMONE MELISSA GOLD (2) held on 1/28/2021. Oral Motion to Appoint Counsel by JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) Heard and Granted. Joint Oral Motion for Speedy Trial Waiver by JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) and SIMONE MELISSA GOLD (2) Heard and Granted. Time between 1/28/2021 and 3/5/2021 (36 Days) shall be excluded from calculation under the Speedy Trial Act in the interest of justice X-T as to JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) and SIMONE MELISSA GOLD (2) Preliminary Hearing set for 3/5/2021 at 01:00 PM in Telephonic/VTC before Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui. Bond Status of Defendant: Defendants Placed on Personal Recognizance; Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim; Defense Attorney: Stephen Brennwald (1), Kira West (2) and Dickson Young (2); US Attorney: Melissa Jackson; Pretrial Officer: Masharia Holman; (zpt) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
The Preliminary Hearing (in DDC) was set back on Jan 28th as part of Gold’s Conditions of Release - see highlights on Page 1 - number 4 - the other entries on DC CR case No: 1:21-cr-00085 are all pretty SOP -
Did you guys see who ended up signing the Affidavit of Surety for Strand after the judge ordered a responsible third-party to do so before releasing Strand on bail?
Dr. Scott Barbour of America’s Frontline Doctors.
I wonder if he’s going to end up regretting that decision as Strand seems to be a bit... reckless.
I didn't good eye though. I know most of their shenanigans have been related to fundraising and the ongoing spread of COVID19 disinformation but I am not sure they have done anything that would be a breach of their release conditions.
Subscribed and welcome back! I had a question (specifically wanted to ask you) regarding the 18 U.S. Code §§ 1512 (c)(2),2. When I looked it up here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512, it says - "Whoever corruptly otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." Do I have this correct?
You are reading that correctly but §1512 is somewhat hard to prove based in part of the “Criminal Intent” do I think Gold & Strand should have been indicted with that statute, absolutely but I also would not be surprised if there’s a Superseder in the not to distant future for both. Because I could see Prosectors seeking a SR1 to add wire fraud and interstate commerce charges too. Hope my answers makes sense and thanks for finding me. Because I remembered our chats about Dr Gold
What makes you think there are superseding indictments on top of the 5 she already has? Do you know something we don’t? (Hopefully yes.)
Because if you look at the original indictment and the original Complaint but specifically the text of the affidavit - it certainly seems like Gold & Strand could face more charges and that would Require a Grand Jury to hand down a Superseding indictment- I personally think investigators (again thats my opinion not necessarily represented as facts in the current docket) are looking further into the finances of both Gold & Strand and that’s largely my rationale for a SR1 because Gold was appointed counsel qualifying under the Ts & Cs of CJA but that’s why I honed in on her defense fund grift https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YV0EJCL_pNtB2wH-8LJlUlrA8AVum7Vz/view?usp=drivesdk
Thank you Filey! Takes a lawyer's eye on this stuff and we thank you. I believe after the verdict is handed down Gold should lose her medical license. If not for this, then what?
So glad you are back spreading your goodness :-) Filey :-) cheers....jpal
Guess I’ll need to come up with a replacement for “ me just spreading my Twitter Glitter” -snort
Twitter Glitter is good but yes maybe out of date now :-) Happy Friday
I’m watching Gold’s docket but not sure what’s happening re: timing. Help! Docket from PACER downloaded today and uploaded to my public drive (with 1 thing in it, thanks for leading the way) here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BdygHuu6aI5s2UzFZYNxBiioHlXiTAr_/view?usp=drivesdk
PACER info below.
Preliminary Hearing set for 3/5/2021. What exactly does this mean? Is this in front of the Grand Jury? How long do you expect this case will take before a guilty/not guilty verdict is rendered?
This mean the hearing will be 3/5/21. Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey: VTC Initial Appearance/Detention Hearing as to JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) and SIMONE MELISSA GOLD (2) held on 1/28/2021. Oral Motion to Appoint Counsel by JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) Heard and Granted. Joint Oral Motion for Speedy Trial Waiver by JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) and SIMONE MELISSA GOLD (2) Heard and Granted. Time between 1/28/2021 and 3/5/2021 (36 Days) shall be excluded from calculation under the Speedy Trial Act in the interest of justice X-T as to JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) and SIMONE MELISSA GOLD (2) Preliminary Hearing set for 3/5/2021 at 01:00 PM in Telephonic/VTC before Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui. Bond Status of Defendant: Defendants Placed on Personal Recognizance; Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim; Defense Attorney: Stephen Brennwald (1), Kira West (2) and Dickson Young (2); US Attorney: Melissa Jackson; Pretrial Officer: Masharia Holman; (zpt) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
The Preliminary Hearing (in DDC) was set back on Jan 28th as part of Gold’s Conditions of Release - see highlights on Page 1 - number 4 - the other entries on DC CR case No: 1:21-cr-00085 are all pretty SOP -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rmESNDl_-0fV2Vh5vj5HmyFYX_CoesL7/view?usp=drivesdk
Hey, Nick and File411,
Did you guys see who ended up signing the Affidavit of Surety for Strand after the judge ordered a responsible third-party to do so before releasing Strand on bail?
Dr. Scott Barbour of America’s Frontline Doctors.
I wonder if he’s going to end up regretting that decision as Strand seems to be a bit... reckless.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/34206275/11/united-states-v-strand/
I didn't good eye though. I know most of their shenanigans have been related to fundraising and the ongoing spread of COVID19 disinformation but I am not sure they have done anything that would be a breach of their release conditions.
3/5 at 1p it is. Thanks you.