Author: Stanley Bolten
I regret to inform you that Brian D. Hill (formerly of USWGO Alt. News) and his family are being ignored by court staff when he made at least three or more phone calls to different staffers at the U.S. District Court in Washington DC on inquiring the timely filed and received sentencing letter for the criminal case of Jonathon Owen Shroyer of Infowars.com, (The War Room w/Owen Shroyer political talk show). Brian had informed counsel (incl. opposing counsel) on both sides of the case and Brian’s family had given a good reason or good excuse why the sentencing letter was being filed by mail close to the date of the sentencing hearing set for September 12, 2023. Attorneys were informed by email on September 9, 2023, and defense attorney Norm Pattis had sent a read receipt on that same day. However, the U.S. Attorney had deleted the sentencing letter email message without ever reading it. We now assume that the U.S. District Court and U.S. Attorney both had colluded to cover up (conceal) the sentencing letter and act like it was never filed. That would be illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, concealing or covering up a received court filing. That sentencing letter filing should have been entered on the docket before the notice of appeal was filed by Norm Pattis or even should have been filed before the final written judgment against Owen. At least the judge could have filed an entry on whether the letter was rejected or approved. None of that exists on court docket. WHY???
Brian’s sentencing letter did have some healthy criticism about the company Owen works for, however, Brian had stated under penalty of perjury that Owen Shroyer is a “good person” and was behaving “professionally” as a news reporter or journalist. Links were included in the affidavit (with legal disclaimers since Brian cannot use the internet) to videos where Owen Shroyer had Brian Hill call into his “War Room” show to tell his story. That the affidavit under penalty of perjury would be evidence which would be favorable to Owen. Not just favorable to Owen as a character witness affidavit, but also would demonstrate that Owen is and was a journalist or news reporter, where his activities on January 6 would be normally protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That shields him from any imprisonment as that would be unconstitutional to imprison journalists for their speech. That may be why it was covered up by the judge or clerk. Brian had asked the U.S. District Court for a reprieve for Owen Shroyer. Owen was charged with a federal criminal offense of “Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds in violation of 18 USC Section 1752(a)(1)”, and other charges but they were dismissed due to a plea agreement by Owen. The U.S. Attorney had recommended 120 days of imprisonment for Owen. The judge had given Owen up to 60 days of imprisonment for his free speech and for his acts of journalism which is unconstitutional.
There are two emails, with read receipts from defense attorney Norm Pattis (for Owen Shroyer, as defendant) which were emailed to the chambers office of the judge asking the clerk to the chambers if the sentencing letter was reviewed or at least if it was confirmed as received. It is reported from Brian’s family that those emails were unanswered by the court officials except with the read receipts from Norm Pattis who represents Owen Shroyer in his criminal case.
Here are the documents and audio recordings proving this:
1. Did you receive emergency letter (inquiry).pdf – Email from Brian’s mother to the judge’s chambers inquiring as to the sentencing letter by Brian. Never answered except read receipt from attorney Norm Pattis.
2. Re Did you receive emergency letter (inquiry).pdf – Second inquiry email asking the same thing. Second email from Brian’s mother to the judge’s chambers inquiring as to the sentencing letter by Brian. Never answered except read receipt from attorney Norm Pattis.
3. Read Did you receive emergency letter (inquiry).pdf – Read receipt from attorney Norm Pattis proving that Norm has received the email which was emailed to the U.S. District Court. See Did you receive emergency letter (inquiry).pdf.
4. Read Re Did you receive emergency letter (inquiry).pdf – Read receipt from attorney Norm Pattis proving that Norm has received the email which was emailed to the U.S. District Court. See Re Did you receive emergency letter (inquiry).pdf.
Here is the audio recording between Brian D. Hill and voicemail system of the court reporter for the Hon. Timothy James Kelly. Dated September 19, 2023. So Brian had left two voicemails with the judge’s chambers, and one voicemail with the court reporter. There has been too many phone calls being ignored for it to be a coincidence. The Court does not wish to respond to Brian’s attempted filing of the sentencing letter which was received timely on September 11, 2023, a day before the sentencing hearing.
1. https://justiceforuswgo.nl/audio/20230919153241-O-12023543111.wav –
2. Phone Call recording: Brian D. Hill/U.S. District Court Judge’s court reporter – Sept. 19, 2023 : Brian D. Hill, formerly of USWGO Alternative News : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Here is the recording and links to be able to download and access the recording.
JusticeForUSWGO.NL Mirror: https://justiceforuswgo.nl/audio/20230918004529-O-12023543590_redacted.wav
JusticeForUSWGO.NL Mirror: https://justiceforuswgo.nl/audio/20230913155525-O-12023543590.wav
Records and evidence retained by this blog prove that the sentencing letter was received on September 11, 2023, a day before Owen was to appear before the judge for sentencing at the hearing. Therefore it was considered timely filed before the sentencing hearing and before the final written judgment filed on September 13, 2023 but was entered on the docket sheet on September 17, 2023. The clerk in phone call recording had indicated that the sentencing letter would quickly be transferred over to “chambers” (judge’s chambers) where the clerk to the judge would be able to review over the sentencing letter and make a determination on whether it is to be taken into consideration or not as a sentencing factor or determination.
Normally, the judge has the discretion on whether to approve the sentencing letter or deny the sentencing letter. If the letter is denied, there is normally an entry on PACER.GOV for the docket sheet in the criminal case stating that leave to file is denied and the filer who attempted the denied filing would be notified, with usually the letter returned back to the sender or a notice or letter from the Court stating that the attempt to file was denied, if that was the case. Brian had written sentencing letters for both Stewart Rhodes and Roger Stone, and both were normally approved to be filed by the judges and were taken into consideration of some kind for both sentencing hearings. It is strange that in Owen Shroyer’s case, the judge and the clerk are refusing to contact Brian Hill or even his mother when conducting inquiries on Brian’s timely filed sentencing letter. Brian was contacted from the judge’s clerk in the Rhodes case about his sentencing letter being received. So this is an anomaly.
18 U.S.C. § 2071 (“
https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-101-records-and-reports/section-2071-concealment-removal-or-mutilation-generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
”)
The judge or clerk or whoever in the judge’s chambers in the Federal Court isn’t docketing the sentencing letter, isn’t returning phone calls or emails, and it is very suspicious. Indication of a possible cover up and concealment if there is no legal decision on whether to reject or approve Brian’s sentencing letter for Owen. It is suspicious if the letter just simply disappears and never shows up on the court docket despite evidence of the USPS delivering that letter to “A. Jones” at the “Mail Room” in the Federal courthouse. If the judge rejected it, there would be a docket entry unless it is sealed to the extent where there is no entry, and an explanation why such entry needs to be sealed from public viewing. However, it is reported since Sept. 25, 2023 that Brian and his family had received no mailed notification from the court. No email notification from the court to Brian’s family. The letter just simply disappeared with no answers from the judge or clerk or anybody from the court. This is suspicious.
These videos embedded below were referenced in the sentencing letter, and are stored on the Internet Archive. These prove that Owen Shroyer is a professional journalist, and that sentencing letter endangers the sentencing memorandum’s narrative of the U.S. Justice Department’s version of January 6 where they claim that Owen had directed people to the capitol building (Doc 46: “…leading a crowd to the Capitol…”), to make it appear that Owen is not protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by claiming anything tantamount to Owen engaging in criminal misconduct of some kind. Brian’s sentencing letter shows a Owen Shroyer who is acting as a professional journalist, and those videos endanger that narrative from the U.S. Government. Without that narrative, Owen cannot possible be sentenced to 60 days of imprisonment or any days of imprisonment as that would violate the First Amendment right to both freedom of speech and free press in the U.S Constitution’s bill of rights. The sentencing letter must be covered up in order to make it easier for Owen to face 60 days of imprisonment in rigged federal judiciary.
Brian had appeared via telephone on Owen Shroyer’s radio show of The War Room on Infowars. See the video clips (DOWNLOAD THEM BEFORE THEY COULD BE DISAPPEARED):
1. Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alt News on WAR ROOM SHOW (1st HOUR) Wednesday 9/13/2017 : Owen Shroyer, Free Speech Systems, LLC, Infowars : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
2. Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alt News on WAR ROOM SHOW (1st HOUR) Monday 1/15/2018 : Owen Shroyer, Free Speech Systems, LLC, Infowars : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Check CourtListener.com, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60315104/united-states-v-shroyer/ and see for yourself. Screenshot has been taken of the docket sheet there as this proves there is no filed sentencing letter. No entry on whether the letter was denied, rejected, sent back to filer, or approved for filing in the case docket of Owen Shroyer. See Wayback Machine archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230926035949/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60315104/united-states-v-shroyer/
See connected and relevant articles:
1. Brian D. Hill (formerly USWGO Alt. News) writes sentencing letter for J6 defendant Owen Shroyer of Infowars, asks for a reprieve for him at the sentencing hearing, filed with defense attorney Norm Pattis and U.S. Government – Justice for Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News
2. U.S. District Court still has not filed on PACER or made a decision on Owen Shroyer sentencing letter by Brian D. Hill filed by Express Mail and was received on September 11, 2023 (day before sentencing) #FreeOwen @allidoisowen – Justice for Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News
3. U.S. Attorney deletes emails with J6 defendant Owen Shroyer sentencing letter prepared by Brian D. Hill, formerly USWGO Alt. News as they do not care about J6 defendant Owen being a “professional” journalist and a “good person” – Justice for Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News
4. Donation to news reporter Owen Shroyer of Infowars for the good things he did for Brian D. Hill, formerly of USWGO Alternative News #FreeOwen #FreeOwenShroyer – Justice for Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News
4 thoughts on “U.S. District Court still not filing sentencing letter in Owen Shroyer January 6 (J6) criminal case, not responding to Brian D. Hill or his family in inquiring on that timely filed letter #FreeOwen”