Is The DOJ Trying Cases Before Trial?

The shocking abuse of power in the Yvette Wang Bail Hearing

The Constitution of the United States of America vests authority in judges as officers of the courts. These have the sole judicial power and jurisdiction over cases “in law and equity.”

Markedly absent in our most authoritative founding document is mention of a Department of Justice (DOJ), administrators, and governmental prosecutors. Amendment VI of the Constitution unpacks the fundamental rights of the accused, which should be ironclad.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Yet, the Department of Justice seems to be abusing these most basic and sacred rights. Too often, this agency has in effect tried accused parties before they ever see a courtroom.

This troubling trend is transparent in the case of Yvette Wang, who was first presented with conditional bail, until the DOJ changed its mind. What has ensued has been a keystone cops kind of scramble to find “evidence” and “new findings” to support an a priori assertion. The flimsy motions by the DOJ to deny bail to a woman presumed innocent would be comical if it were not for the fact that her very life is on the line.

The DOJ’s continued attempts to keep Wang incarcerated pending trial fly in the face of the 6th Amendment, but no wonder—these prosecutors admitted they are working closely and on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The Communist Party has truly infiltrated our most sacred judicial processes, and that must be put to a stop. Here. Now.

On April 4, Wang endured a two-hour hearing where DOJ prosecutors attempted to make a case for denying her bail, on speculation that she could be a flight risk. Their arguments were so weak that Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered the government to provide certain documents and lay a foundation to support their inferences, which the court was not convinced were factual. The government failed to do so.

Instead, the government introduced new “evidence” and reargued the points they had already made. Specifically, they made claims of “changed circumstances.” Introducing new evidence after a hearing has already been heard embodies a delay that denies the accused a speedy trial. One could argue that Yvette Wang is being tried by the government to “prove” her guilt even prior to having a constitutional trial. This is clearly not within their authority.

If the government didn’t have sufficient information to deny bail to begin with, then why did they deny bail? They are quite literally begging the question with circular reasoning that steps outside reasonable prosecution.

The government has failed to impeach Ms. Wang’s credibility and has instead called into question its own.

Several of the government’s claims are highly misleading in an effort to inaccurately portray Wang as having massive liquid funding she could use to flee the country and avoid trial. This in spite of the fact that, as a document filed by Wang’s counsel attests, “Ms. Wang knew since the fall of last year that the government was investigating and that it seized hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only did she not flee, but she gave notice to the government that she wanted to travel without needing to do so.” This was “consistent with her desire to maintain her U.S. asylum and inconsistent with an intent to flee.”

Among the contrived claims put forward by the government to justify its transgression of the 6th Amendment, are these:

  • The DOJ arbitrarily assigned a dollar value to HCN, a type of investment coin, and then assumed this can be readily converted into cash. Contrary to this claim, HCN cannot readily be converted into cash in an amount sufficient to fund an escape. Because the government itself seized much, if not all, of this fund’s reserves that could have been redeemed for USD, customers were notified by the managing Himalayan Exchange that it would be unable to redeem more than $5,000 per month for any holder.
  • The government has been unable to substantiate their accusations of bank accounts supposedly opened by Want. “Having asserted that Ms. Wang should be deprived of her liberty and denied bail in part because she purportedly ‘lied’ about the existence of a bank account in St. Lucia, the government now admits—only because it was asked a direct question by the Court—that it has no idea whether such account even exists. In doing so, the government has failed to impeach Ms. Wang’s credibility and has instead called into question its own.”
  • The government has conflated accounts Ms. Wang administered with accounts she could write checks or make withdrawals from. While she helped administer funds, she did not control them.
  • Without any photo evidence or documentation, the government claimed that phones and documents were found hidden in the couch cushions and bed in Wang’s apartment. Yet, by April 17, they contradicted themselves and were forced to admit that the FBI squad leader for the arrest and search, “does not recall a cellphone or documents having been recovered from under the defendant’s mattress or between couch cushions.” This is either incompetence or fraud on the part of the DOJ.
  • The government falsely claimed that they had a transcript of a pretrial interview on the day of Wang’s arrest, yet there is no such transcript, video, audio or stenograph to support the precise language the government claims took place. In fact, the government wasn’t there, and the interview was conducted in Mandarin Chinese with the help of an interpreter—and interpretation from one language to another is imprecise at best. However, Wang’s counsel WAS at the interview and DID take notes, which contradict the government’s narrative.

Lawyer Alex Lipman sums up the conclusion of this matter perfectly, in an April 14 letter to Judge Lehrburger:

“In light of the government’s multiple misstatements and material omissions described above—all made for the purpose of detaining Ms. Wang without bail—the court should be highly skeptical of the government’s representation…” This applies both to their assertion that Wang is a flight risk and to their rejection of eight bail co-signers.

It is time for the Court to end this charade by the DOJ and time for Congress and the public to put the DOJ under a microscope and begin holding them to account for abuse of power. It is time for the people to take back our constitutional right to a fair and speedy opportunity to defend ourselves in court without first having to defend ourselves from an administrative state following the marching orders of the CCP.

Enough is enough.

Author: Kelly John Walker
Kelly John Walker is an American statesman, writer, branding professional, and entrepreneur. He is the founder of FreedomTalk, host of FreedomTalk TV, and a freelance writer.


On Key

Related Posts