Capitol stormer who wore ‘I Was There’ shirt to stay in jail
Class Action
A federal judge refused Thursday to set bail for a Texas man who was wearing a T-shirt that said, “I Was There, Washington D.C., January 6, 2021,” when he was arrested on charges he stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
U.S. Judge Carl Nichols ordered Garret Miller to remain jailed pending trial, concluding the Dallas man poses a danger to the community.
Miller didn’t give a statement to the law enforcement officers who arrested him at his home two weeks after the riots, prosecutors said. But they noted he was wearing a T-shirt that had a photograph of former President Donald Trump, and it said “Take America Back” and “I Was There, Washington D.C., January 6, 2021.”
Prosecutors presented a photograph of Miller wearing the shirt during an earlier hearing for his case and cited it in a court filing seeking his pretrial detention.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Kelley said Miller has shown a troubling “lack of respect for any authority.”
“I think it’s safe to say that nobody who entered the Capitol that day showed any respect for authority, so I don’t credit that argument very much,” countered defense attorney F. Clinton Broden. He conceded Miller entered the Capitol that day but said his client didn’t engage in any violence.
On a recorded call immediately after his arrest, Miller told his mother, “I don’t feel that I’ve done anything wrong and now I’m being locked up,” according to prosecutors.
Like many of the more than 300 people facing federal charges in connection with the siege, Miller thoroughly documented and commented on his actions that day in a flurry of social media posts.
After Miller posted a selfie showing himself inside the Capitol building, another Facebook user wrote, “bro you got in?! Nice!” Miller replied, “just wanted to incriminate myself a little lol,” prosecutors said.
Related listings
-
Court’s Conservatives Seem to Back Trump on Immigration
Class Action 11/13/2019The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seems prepared to allow the Trump administration to end a program that allows some immigrants to work legally in the United States and protects them from deportation.There did not appear to be any suppo...
-
Justices take up high-profile case over young immigrants
Class Action 11/09/2019The Supreme Court is taking up the Trump administration’s plan to end legal protections that shield 660,000 immigrants from deportation, a case with strong political overtones amid the 2020 presidential election campaign.All eyes will be on Chi...
-
Feds: US Supreme Court should turn down 'Bridgegate' appeal
Class Action 05/12/2019The U.S. solicitor general's office has recommended that the U.S. Supreme Court not hear the appeal of two convicted defendants in the "Bridgegate" case, nudging the four-year legal saga of New Jersey's most famous traffic jam toward a conclusion."Fu...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.