top of page

When the Government can Prosecute Americans as Terrorists for Removing a Fence

The Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI defines domestic terrorism as Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

By their definition of violence, one needs to beg the question if tipping over a temporary metal fence constitutes the definition of violence. However, "Judge Tim Kelly just made the destruction of part of a temporary metal fence on govt property a federal crime of terrorism."

Julie Kelly who has been following the J6 hearings very closely and has been reporting on them on a daily basis posted the following on Twitter.

Using the upward departure provision of the United States Sentencing Commission allows partisan judges to charge non-violent protesters under federal law of domestic terrorism. Setting a dangerous precedent for American citizens exercising their right to protest under the First Amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Generally reserved for defendants with multiple prior sentences and violent offenses, Judge Tim Kelly has classified even non-violent protesters as felons. Individuals with no criminal history and no previous violent offenses are subject to his direction to serve longer sentences than previously prescribed by law.

Joe Biggs was sentenced to 17 years in prison, making his sentencing one of the highest sentences of the hundreds handed out but far lower than what prosecutors wanted. According to the Washington Examiner, "U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly focused on Biggs working with others to break down a fence to support applying enhancements to his sentence.

"Tearing down that fence was a discreet act that facilitated the crowd's surge forward" and "was specifically to obstruct the administration of justice,” a guideline used to enhance the prison sentence. According to Judge Kelly.

Biggs who was tearful on the stand said, "I know that I messed up that day, but I’m not a terrorist ... I didn’t hurt anybody.”

These sentences handed down by the judges on J6 will have a detrimental effect on the Free Speech Clause in the Constitution. If Judges can hand out multi-year sentences and deny due process claiming they were acts of domestic terrorism to address grievances with the government what does that say about the overreach of the government? Will Americans be allowed to disagree with how our government functions?

We want to know what you think. Should non-violent activity be considered domestic terrorism? Should disagreeing with the government with loud boisterous activity be cause to insert the domestic terrorism clause to add jail time to sentences?

Leave us a comment. If you found our article resonant, a simple click on the heart icon would be greatly appreciated. If our article truly struck a chord, we encourage you to share it with others. And, if you're inclined to support our cause further, a modest donation of $1 to our Cash App ($WecuNews) would be immensely valued—it goes a long way in sustaining our news platform, which often grapples with censorship challenges. Your readership means the world to us. Thank you for your time

41 views0 comments


bottom of page