U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta called the claims made by Rhodes in the case and by his own attorneys “incorrect and frankly confusing”. In a nearly two-hour hearing, he rejected the majority of Rhodes’ proposed claims as irrelevant, legally inadmissible, or redundant.
“Mr. Rhodes has never… since he was arrested, he has remained silent,” Mehta said. of contact with his lawyers or his frustration with his lawyers performance”.
He said Rhodes might add lawyer of his legal team if he wanted but that he will stand trial in three weeks and what original counsel James Lee Bright and Phillip Linder would not removed from the case.
Rhodes is accused of in collusion use force against federal government and stop legitimate transmission of power attacking the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Until he is charged of entrance to building, prosecutors say he was watching group who brutally confronted law enforcement and tried to cover up evidence of those crimes. Three accomplices pleaded guilty to sedition; four will stand trial with he and four more in November.
Postponement will cause “chaos” in a crowded yard schedule Mehta said, and “there is no human possible way” a new lawyer “could be ready in 90 days”. Court set to begin September 27; it was planned before for September 26, but last week Mehta booked one- day delay for Rosh Hashanah holiday.
Mehta called it “complete and complete nonsense” to suggest that Rhodes was incompetently represented by Bright and Linder, whom he trusted with leading efforts to help all defendants prepare for trial. Two Texas attorneys have represented Rhodes since January. arrest.
far from shut out of In the process, according to Mehta, Rhodes “obtained permission that no other defendant, to my knowledge, that no other defendant in in any case not just Cases dated January 6, but any case in this area is becoming.
Rhodes in jail in COLUMBIA REGION; US marshals sued him twice week before review proof for six hours in time. “No other defendant receives such of housing,” Mehta said. The judge acknowledged that the presence of lawyers in Texas was challenge but Rhodes said made choice not to hire locals counsel.
Rhodes new attorney Edward L. Tarpley, Jr. wrote that Rhoads’ previous attorneys “substantially do not report with Rhodes on preparing for trial, finding witnesses, evidence selection, or even basic defense strategy”, although “Rhoads is a graduate of Yale Law School. with legal education, experience and education.”
Mehta disputed Rhodes’ legal acumen, saying that the self-proclaimed militia leader was making demands that a federal judge had not. power provide — including forcing a House committee to investigate the Jan. 6 incident attack in hand over information and ban use of entry made on private citizen because it might violate state law. “You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to know what” First Amendment challenge lead to no indictment, Mehta said.
Bright told the court that he rejected some of Rhodes proposals on similar grounds, including “diversion” from “conspiratorial world”. Others, he said, he had heard of for in first time in Tarpley movement.
“I have no ill will in Any way to Mr Rhodes. I gave seven months of my life to Mr. Rhodes,” he said. But I real right now I’m straining not to tell the court that this is not a broken relationship.
By the end of hearing, he and Rhodes both apologized for blaming each other of lie, and Bright promised to “bend over back” to better communicate with his client.
Mehta said the only legitimate concern raised by Tarpley was that the indictment last a week of Kelly Sorell, former general counsel for oath-keepers, “represents a monumental change in how Rhodes expected to defend himself. In court, Linder said that up while she arrest SoRelle was ready to testify for Rhodes defense.
Prosecutor Jeffrey Nestler said the Justice Department told all defendants months ago that SoRelle, who stood on Capitol grounds with Rhodes on January 6 had “potential criminal exposure.” She is accused of conspiracy to obstruct the work of Congress vote counting and forgery with evidence, including other crimes. She publicly declared her innocence.