A Kansas man previously accused of participating in the events of January 6 is seeking sanctions against the government and a top Washington, D.C., prosecutor, alleging deceptive practices regarding access to his case file and discovery materials. The man claims he was misled into believing he would be allowed to retain the evidence he had collected over the years, only to have his request denied later in court.
He described the situation as a betrayal, likening it to the actions of cheats and thieves. In a recent court filing, he asserted that he had been directly assured he could retain discovery materials and request his case file, only for the Department of Justice to later contradict this agreement. He argues that the government’s actions not only misled him but also unfairly cast renewed allegations against him after his case was dismissed.
His case was among those dismissed in January following an executive order that ended pending prosecutions related to the events of January 6. He had originally faced several federal charges, including civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, and unauthorized entry into restricted areas. Prosecutors alleged he and his brother were involved in confrontations with law enforcement and unlawfully entered offices within the Capitol.
Despite the dismissal, he later filed a motion seeking sanctions against the government for making false accusations and engaging in invasive conduct. Initially, he did not name the prosecutor in this motion, but after receiving what he saw as contradictory responses from the Department of Justice, he expanded his request to seek sanctions against the lead prosecutor as well.
According to his filing, the prosecutor had initially suggested at a public event that he should request his case file and retain discovery materials. However, when he followed through on that suggestion in court, his request was denied. He described his shock at this reversal, saying he had assumed the issue was the result of internal conflicts within the prosecutor’s office.
The government has maintained that its actions were in compliance with the executive order, stating that dismissing the case did not equate to an exoneration or an admission that prior allegations were false. It also argued that his legal rights, including the presumption of innocence, remained intact throughout the process.
In response, he has doubled down on his accusations, insisting that he was deliberately misled and that the situation appears to have been a setup. He has also defended his actions on January 6, stating that he was peaceful, did not engage in violence, and was not charged with assault.
Following the executive order, a judge dismissed five non-violent charges against him. He has since indicated that while there are still legal matters to resolve, he is ready to move on to a new chapter in life.
