Left: Henry “Enrique” Tarrio booking photo (via Alexandria sheriff’s Office). Right: This exhibit from video released by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack shows President Donald Trump recording a video statement on the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021, from the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C. (House Select Committee via AP.)
Imprisoned Proud Boy and convicted seditious conspiracist Henry “Enrique” Tarrio‘s bid to join former President Donald Trump‘s motion to stay lawsuits seeking to hold him responsible for the violence of Jan. 6 should be ignored, a group of lawmakers urged a federal judge on Wednesday.
The Democratic lawmakers who made the request are tied to the underlying civil case, Lee v. Trump. In addition to suing the former president, they have sued his onetime attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and far-right groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, accusing them of conspiring to incite an assembled crowd to march on and enter the U.S. Capitol in order to disrupt the Jan. 6 certification. At present, Trump is trying to stay the case, arguing that his pending criminal prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., would prohibit him from responding to the civil suit without incriminating himself.
The plaintiffs include the former chairman of the now-defunct House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and nine other lawmakers.
Tarrio is named as a defendant in the Lee case as well as two other civil cases in Washington, D.C., tied to Jan. 6. He is currently serving 22 years in prison after a jury convicted him of engaging in a seditious conspiracy to stop the transfer of power by force. The former leader of the extremist group, as Law&Crime reported, made the formal request to join Trump’s motion last month for the sake of “judicial economy.”
That request faced an inherent uphill battle since Tarrio admitted in the motion on March 21 that “no official act immunity issue or other Trump defense in this case … currently directly affects him.”
In their brief to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta on Wednesday, the lawmakers agreed.
“Defendant Tarrio seeks to stay the consolidated cases against him pending ultimate resolution of United States v. Trump [the Washington D.C. case], a criminal case that is unrelated to him. Tarrio’s ‘single place holder document’ should be denied for failing to comply with this court’s rules,” the plaintiffs’ attorney Marc Epstein wrote on April 3.
Tarrio failed to show any reason to support his motion beyond a “vague reference to the ‘interest of judicial economy and any other applicable request’” and failed to show any “pressing need,” the filing argues.
“Tarrio makes no attempt to carry his burden,” Epstein added, succinctly.
As for the “judicial economy” Tarrio vows he is after, the lawmakers’ lawyer wrote: “There is no reason to suspect a resolution of United States v. Trump, an unrelated criminal case, will in any way modify or streamline discovery as to Tarrio here.”
Any stay in the Lee case would directly undermine Tarrio’s promise of efficiency since he is also named in a lawsuit from Jan. 6 officers, Conrad v. Smith, a case that, barring any new disruptions, is steadily plodding along.
Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to request for comment Wednesday.
