Congressman introduces ‘J6 Bill to Counter Political Prosecutions’

Retiring 9 term Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) announced in a Newsmax interview that he had filed the “Matthew Lawrence Perna Act."

No violence, no detention

While unlikely to be passed while the Senate remains under Democrat control, the bill would prohibit the detention of non-violent political protestors and would even allow those peaceful protestors who are wrongfully detained to sue the federal government as well as the federal agents involved in their imprisonment.

Judged by peers

Gohmert’s bill also ensures that political protestors have a chance to avoid a venue in which the overwhelming majority of the jury pool opposes the political beliefs of those protestors. This was and remains a major issue in the prosecution of Jan. 6 protestors. 

The Federal Public Defenders’ Office for the District of Columbia commissioned the firm Select Litigation to assess how the D.C. jury pool would relate to the many indigent defendants facing charges for the Jan. 6 protest. Their findings described the difficulties the defendants would face if the judicial venue remained in D.C., where 96% of the people do not identify as Republicans.

Prospective jurors in the District of Columbia have decidedly negative impressions of individuals arrested in conjunction with the activities of January 6, 2021. Their bias against the defendants is evident in numerous results and is reflected in a significant prejudgment of the case: a clear majority admit they would be inclined to vote “guilty” if they were serving on a jury at the defendants’ trial. 

The attitudes of prospective jurors in the District of Columbia are decidedly more hostile toward the defendants than adults nationwide or prospective jurors in a demographically comparable federal court division. . . .

The study included the results of a poll of potential D.C. jurors.

The vast majority (84%) have an unfavorable opinion of the “people arrested for participating in the events at the Capitol on January 6.” Only 6% have a favorable view of those arrested. . . .

An overwhelming majority of the District of Columbia jury pool have a prejudgment about the case. When asked whether they think the “people who were arrested for activities related to those demonstrations are guilty or not guilty of the charges brought against them,” 71% say “guilty” and 3% say “not guilty”. . . . 

This perception of guilt goes beyond a simple, loosely held opinion. . . . Seven of every ten (70%) would describe the defendants as “conspiracy theorists,” 62% would describe them as “criminals,” 58% would describe them as “white supremacists,” and 54% would describe them as “members of a violent right-wing organization.”

Federal judges have nonetheless refused to move the venue of Jan. 6 defendants out of D.C.  Gohmert’s bill addresses this issue by allowing defendants to move their cases to the district in which they live.

Reining in the DOJ

The bill provides citizens with the following additional protections.

• speedy trials 
• remedies for malicious over-prosecution
• limits on the use of national security authorities against citizens
• a Sense of Congress that political protestors should not receive more than the minimum sentence provided by the applicable guideline range

Honoring Matthew Perna

The namesake of the proposed law, Matthew Perna, was a 37-year-old Pennsylvania resident who taught English overseas, returned to the US, switched his support from Bernie Sanders to President Trump and joined the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, entering the Capitol building for 20 minutes. These events led to his death.

Gohmert's office worked closely with Geri Perna, Matthew's aunt, to ensure that the legislation would protect all nonviolent political protesters, regardless of their cause or political alignment. . . . 

Gohmert emphasized that Matthew Perna was a "victim" of a form of political vendetta, stating, "He didn't hurt anyone. He didn't damage anything. He simply followed a crowd through opened doors in our Capitol. Yet, he was persecuted mercilessly by our government and media, until he took his own life as his solution to stopping harm the DOJ was doing to [the] family that loved him."

Frontline News previously covered Perna’s death, describing him as one Jan. 6 defendant who won’t be serving jail time. Perna was pressured to sign a plea agreement admitting that he knowingly entered a restricted space, despite the fact that he entered through an open door as his family reported in his obituary:

Matt’s heart broke and his spirit died, and many people are responsible for the pain he endured. . . . He entered the Capitol through a previously opened door (he did not break in as was reported), where he was ushered in by police. He didn't break, touch or steal anything. He did not harm anyone, as he stayed within the velvet ropes taking pictures. For this act he has been persecuted. . . . [Emphases added].

Questionable agent report

Not only was the door open, but Perna, after immediately turning himself in to the FBI after learning they were looking for him, clarified that he did not enter the Capitol voluntarily, as recorded by an unnamed FBI Special Agent in an extraordinarily contradictory affidavit:

PERNA indicated that he and a friend went to the top of the steps of the Capitol building’s west side and was surprised that the door was open. Two U.S. Capitol police officers were inside the door. PERNA claimed that he was pushed into the building by a crowd that had gathered behind him. PERNA claimed that it was not his intention to enter the Capitol. . . .

Based on the foregoing, your affiant submits that there is probable cause to believe that PERNA violated 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (2), which makes it a crime to (1) knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do . . . [Emphases added].

That agent did not provide any evidence to justify his “belief” that a person entering a building through open doors, while police officers are standing next to the doors and not objecting, and who stayed within the velvet ropes and left after just 20 minutes, nonetheless knew he was in a restricted space. 

Pressure

When the FBI interrogated Perna a second time, he admitted that, “at one point he become [sic] frustrated, and, using a metal pole, tapped on a window of the Capitol building.” That knock on the window did not break any glass but was sufficient evidence of violence to bring the weight of the DOJ down on Perna, who followed in the footsteps of others who clearly said they did not know they could not be in the Capitol and then signed a confession to the contrary:

The defendant knew at the time he entered the U.S. Capitol Building that he did not have permission to enter the building.

Message to other protestors

Federal prosecutors even boasted on their website about the extraordinary punishment faced by Perna for his 20 peaceful minutes in the Capitol, knowing the chilling effect this would have on others: 

[Perna] remained inside the building for approximately 20 minutes, in the Senate Wing Lobby. While there, he held a cellular device in his right hand and filmed and chanted with the crowd. . . .

Perna pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to an indictment that charged him with obstruction of Congress, a felony, and three related misdemeanor charges. . . .

He faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the felony charge and additional penalties on the misdemeanor offenses. 

Upping the pressure

Apparently 20 years turned out to be an insufficient sentence for 20 peaceful minutes, and the DOJ informed Perna that they planned to seek an even longer jail sentence based on “domestic terrorism deterrence.”

That was too much for Perna; as his obituary puts it,

. . . the justice system killed his spirit and his zest for life. Matt was an amazing man!