Subject: Re: USSC Attacks Language, Grammar and Punctuation
Yes, I get frustrated with the tortured grammar parsing favored by the current textualist USSC with their endless list of hypotheticals. I would prefer the USSC looking for the spirit of the law when the meaning is unclear (actual edge cases).

Only rule based on real events. (ORBORE)
v.
Rule based on fiction. (RBOF)

But, I think charges under Section 1512(c)(2) can only be brought if there is tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (the title of section 18). J6 qualifies as tampering (interfere to change for the worse), and perhaps witness (Congress certifing the election), but this requires a discussion of what witness means. The USSC did not discuss this (Congress as a witness) because it was busy discussing hypothetical prosecutions of peaceful protests.

Section 1512(c)(2) was not written with a J6 event in mind, and Congress should write a law protecting itself and other government bodies. Kind of astonishing that Congress hasn't acted, and instead has left the DOJ twisting in the wind. Maybe this USSC case will prompt action after the election. The DOJ's success in holding many to account for their actions on J6 has discouraged similar violent events. Hopefully the USSC does not give the green light to more political violence.

This wording is too broad:
"Whoever corruptly obstructs any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."

This wording might work (also including a full definition of 'violence'):
"Whoever corruptly, and with violence, obstructs any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."


Congress should also review all uses of the word "otherwise", as the current USSC has given this word special meaning. Basically, don't use the word "otherwise" in any law, because the USSC intreprets it as meaning "disregard the following".

=== links ===

Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge
"Fischer was also charged with violating a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of the Enron scandal. The law makes it a crime to “otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding.”... Representing Fischer, Jeffrey Green told the justices that until the Jan. 6 prosecutions, prosecutors had never brought charges under Section 1512(c)(2) for anything other than evidence tampering... the court had reiterated that a general catchall phrase at the end of a statute is “controlled and defined by reference to the terms that precede it.” Applied to this case, Roberts contended, it should mean that Section 1512(c)(2) “should involve something that’s capable of alteration, destruction, and mutilation.”"
https://www.scotusblog.com/202...

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
...
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record ...
or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


'witness' in oral USSC arguments:
->-> "So, if I disclosed a witness list in a large multi-defendant drug trial, my purpose in doing that, though I haven't altered the document, would be to intimidate the witnesses or prevent their attendance. That, on our submission, would also violate (c)(2)."
->-> "the title of the statute refers to tampering with witnesses, victims, and informants. But along with victims -- excuse me, witnesses, victims, and informants comes evidence that they provide"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...