Two Attorneys Accused In Molotov Cocktail Attacks Are Back In Jail

We have been discussing the case of attorneys Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman, who are accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail into an occupied police vehicle in New York. The case could prove an early opportunity for the Trump Administration to reframe prosecutions as domestic terrorism.  Earlier, some of us were surprised that U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie upheld the $250,000 bail determination of U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Gold.  Prosecutors presented evidence that they two attorneys were trying to distribute Molotov cocktails and suggested that Mattis did not appear rational.  Now, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed Judge Brodie and the two attorneys are back in jail.

Both attorneys were bailed out.  Rahman’s bail was paid for by friend and fellow attorney Salmah Rizvi, who served in the Defense Department and State Department during the Obama administration.  She will now receive back her bail money.

The decision came quickly after a brief hearing held Friday morning. However, the Second Circuit also set an expedited schedule for a full appeal.  Even for an interim order, it is relatively rare to have bail decisions reversed since they are imbued with factual determinations of the lower court,

The two attorneys reportedly have clean records, which works to their obvious benefit. The problem is the nature of the alleged crime and the effort to get others to attack police. Such conduct does suggest a threat to public safety, if true.  On the other hand, they can be monitored on home confinement and the risk of the coronavirus still looms large for courts.

 

I would be interested in seeing the report of the pretrial service officer’s report on the attorneys.  These reports are given great weight by the courts. However, 18 U.S.C. 3142(g), lists factors for bail decisions that they include:

  1. the nature and circumstances of the offense (in particular whether it is an offense which is violent or nonviolent in nature, or involves narcotics);
  2. the weight of the evidence against the person;
  3. the history and characteristics of the person —
    1. character — (including physical and mental condition), family ties, employment, financial resources, length of time in the community, community ties, past conduct history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, record of court appearances; and
    2. whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and
  4. the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or to the community that would be posed by the person’s release.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

Three of the four criteria above militate against bail.  The offense is violent and the weight of the evidence is great, including the picture below. It was also done with considerable premeditation and planning if it is true that they had multiple such devices and the makings for more devices.  Finally, as noted, the danger to the community is high particularly given the ongoing protests.

The key is that these individuals were the alleged direct actors, not alleged conspirators or material supporters. The continuing protests are the other major factor, where a court might be more comfortable with bail after the streets have returned to normal. Most judges tend to deny bail in such circumstances.

As a criminal defense attorney, it is probably not surprising that I tend to favor bail. The monitoring of prisoners in the federal system is a very successful program.  Moreover, these defendants are entitled to presumptions of innocence and incarceration makes their work with counsel much more difficult.  Having said that, the decision by Brodie runs against the grain for the courts as a whole.  While there has been controversy recently over the elimination or abridgment of bail in cities like New York, that is a state and city trend. Indeed, the opposition to bail reform was growing in New York before the protests and the release of looters has resulted in outrage, including recent moves by the Manhattan District Attorney seeking court approval to hold defendants.

68 thoughts on “Two Attorneys Accused In Molotov Cocktail Attacks Are Back In Jail”

      1. Robo-cop is on it’s way to America.

        Brought to you by the transhumanism agenda.

        That is the Big plan and the Bigger picture.

  1. Norbert Elekes:
    “On this day in 1944: More than 150,000 Allied troops landed in Normandy.
    “Timelapse [animation in the tweet] shows their 87 days of combat.
    “- orange: UK
    “- blue: USA
    “- red: Canada
    “- black: Axis
    “(CRMA) #DDay”
    https://twitter.com/NorbertElekes/status/1269229510299394048

    My thanks to all of the Allied forces who defeated the Axis powers.

    Mara Liasson’s response: “Biggest antifa rally in history.”

  2. These two can do the most for their country by rotting in prison, as negative exemplars to the militant wannabes on the left and right.

    1. Former KGB, Professor – Modern Political System & Ideological Subversion

      @ 31:30

      “When you bring a country to the point of almost total demoralization, when nothing works anymore . . . . when even the leaders of church sometimes say, “well, violence for the sake of justice, especially social justice, IS justified, in a countries like [list of countries].”

      “And we listen to them and we say, “Yeah, probably, it is true.”

      “Is it true?”

      “No, it is not justified. Violence is not justified. Especially for the sake of “social justice” introduced by Marxist Leninism.”

  3. “We have been discussing the case of attorneys Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman, who are accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail into an occupied police vehicle in New York.”

    Yup, Mr. Turley has been discussing the above and remains silent about the similar case in Nevada:

    “Three Nevada men with ties to a loose movement of right-wing extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas. …
    “The three men were arrested Saturday [May 30] on the way to a protest in downtown Las Vegas after filling gas cans at a parking lot and making Molotov cocktails in glass bottles, according to a copy of the criminal complaint obtained by The Associated Press. …
    “Stephen T. Parshall, 35, Andrew T. Lynam Jr., 23, and William L. Loomis, 40, were being held on $1 million bond each in the Clark County jail Wednesday, according to court records. … The complaint said Lynam is an Army reservist, with Parshall formerly enlisted in the Navy and Loomis formerly enlisted in the Air Force.
    “Each currently faces two federal charges — conspiracy to damage and destroy by fire and explosive, and possession of unregistered firearms. In state court, they’ve been accused of felony conspiracy, terrorism and explosives possession. Trutanich said they’ll be prosecuted in both jurisdictions.”
    https://apnews.com/6223153093f08fa910c4ab445771b773
    Also see https://www.justice.gov/usao-nv/pr/joint-terrorism-task-force-charges-three-men-who-allegedly-sought-exploit-protests-las

    Unfortunately, I am no longer surprised that Mr. Turley wants to highlight a case involving two people of color who are attorneys while remaining silent about three white men with (former) military ties.

    1. Perhaps Turley will comment on this case as well, but there are obvious reasons why he would be focusing on 2 attorneys who are attacking police officers. Remember that he’s an attorney himself.

      Playing the race card like you did only makes you look petty and stupid. I’d suggest going for a better look.

  4. Rahman is a Pakistani immigrant who wants to tear down the United States. Will a felony conviction impact her immigration status? Can she be deported?

  5. A conviction should be followed by a referral to the bar.

    These two attorneys should not be practicing law after this.

    1. Practice Law? Not only do they need to be locked up, they should be tarred and feathered. I believe in the biblical eye for an eye justice. These people who have been encouraged by the left and obviously have no respect for authority in their upbringing should have bricks thrown at them by police or their property fire bombed as their punishment. Now we know that won’t happen, but an example must be made of these 2 BB-Brains!

  6. So Salmah Rizvi bailed out Urooj Rahman. I am a temperamental xenophile, but in the last few years I have come to favor severe immigration restrictionism, because I don’t hate my own country or my own people and heritage. Why import so many people of dubious loyalty to the United States, and its historic white majority, however high their IQ might be?

    1. So Salmah was an Obama dept of def and dept of state employee under Obama.
      Wake up people.

    2. The Muslim female is a hard-core radical. The black dude is a follower. He majored in sociology and African-American studies at Princeton – same as lefty Michelle Obama and probably the same professors. So he was indoctrinated with Marxist anti-American ideology, but still wanted the money and prestige of the Ivy League degrees and the Wall St. corporate lawyer job. But then he got laid-off and swept up in the social upheaval and wanted to please the radical girlfriend. She should remain locked-up but he doesn’t seem that much of a threat. As someone else pointed out, he can’t even put his pants on properly.

  7. Rahman is also on video defending violent protest shortly before the alleged molotov cocktail throwing:

    https://nypost.com/2020/06/05/molotov-lawyer-urooj-rahman-blames-de-blasio-for-not-calling-off-nypd/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow

    “I think this protest is a long time coming,” lawyer Urooj Rahman said in a videotaped interview filmed near the Barclays Center in Brooklyn at around 12:15 a.m. May 30.

    “This s–t won’t ever stop unless we f–kin’ take it all down. And that’s why the anger is being expressed tonight in this way,” she said.

    The video surface Friday, as Rahman and co-defendant Colinford Mattis were taken back into custody by US marshals.

    The two had been released to home confinement of $250,000 bail, but on Friday an appeals court granted prosecutors’ request for an emergency stay of their release.

    During the four-minute interview, Rahman claimed to be unaware that cops had been hurt by protesters during violent clashes sparked by the police killing of George Floyd — but said de Blasio should have held back the NYPD “the way that the mayor in Minneapolis did.”

    “I think the mayor should have done that, because if he really cared about his police officers, he should have realized that it’s not worth them getting hurt,” she said.

    Rahman was then caught on surveillance video just before 1 a.m. that day lighting a Molotov cocktail and tossing it into an empty police vehicle near the 88th Precinct, according to court papers.

    Rahman, 31, said in the video before the Molotov incident that violence against cops was “understandable,” adding, “people are angry because the police are never held accountable.

    “This has got to stop. And the only way they hear, the only way they hear us is through violence, through the means that they use,” she said.

    “We’ve got to use the massa’s [master’s] tools, that’s what my friend always says.”

  8. Seeing Mr. Mattis, Esq. standing there for his photo he looks just like what I always imagined an important Wall Street lawyer looked like.

    1. He’s dressed like a homeless bum. His pants are on backwards. Either that Wall Street law firm was paying him minimum wage, or he’s become a crack addict.

  9. Lock up. Don’t throw away the key. Put it on a Molotov cocktail and serve it to their cell.

  10. Meanwhile, in the continuing assault on Free Speech:
    ————
    Austin Opera and Austin Symphony fire trombonist for posts about protesters, Trump

    By Michael Barnes
    Posted Jun 2, 2020 at 1:35 PM

    The Austin Symphony and Austin Opera have dismissed principal trombonist Brenda Sansig Salas after a string of comments she posted on social media defending President Donald Trump and blasting black protesters who “deserve what they get.”

    Salas’ Facebook account appears to have been withdrawn, but screengrabs provided to the American-Statesman from May 30 include the following comments, among others:

    “Trump didn’t kill someone, but in your black minds, everything is his fault.”

    “The BLACKS are looting and destroying their environment. They deserve what they get.”

    “Trump isn’t rioting. The blacks are. He’d be damned if he didn’t shut down the country.”

    The response from the symphony and opera, which share instrumentalists, was swift.

    “We would like to thank the community and let you know that your voice was heard,” Austin Symphony Executive Director Anthony Corroa posted May 31 on Facebook. “Once alerted, we were appalled by the comments as they are clearly not reflective of who we are as an organization. We began to work quickly and closely with the American Federation of Musicians, our orchestra committee, staff and other key members. At this time we can state that the musician is no longer employed by the ASO for there is no place for hate within our organization.”

    Austin Opera General Director Annie Burridge responded as well on May 31.

    “I am appalled by the racist social media postings made by a member of our orchestra last night, which are in direct contradiction to our company values and mission,” Burridge posted on Facebook. “Austin Opera strongly condemns these social media posts and had no knowledge of or involvement in them. Hate speech, in any form or forum, will not be tolerated.”

    In follow-up to its statement, Austin Opera said it had severed all ties with Salas. Her bio has been removed from the Austin Symphony’s website. Attempts to reach Salas for comment have been unsuccessful.

    https://www.austin360.com/news/20200602/austin-opera-and-austin-symphony-fire-trombonist-for–posts-about-protesters-trump
    ———
    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Sqeeky– These are my favorite parts of the quote:

      “At this time we can state that the musician is no longer employed by the ASO for there is no place for hate within our organization.” and then the General Director of ASO said, “I am appalled by the racist social media postings…”

      Imagine firing someone because she said that people who set fires to businesses and steal their property should get what they deserve and being “appalled” by such “racist” statements. These people have lost their marbles. In their world, they have been so intimidated by the fear of being called a racist that people simply are not allowed to dislike someone who riots and loots.

      You made reference the other day to Al Sharpton. At Floyd’s funeral one of the things he said was “Because ever since 401 years ago, the reason we could never be who we wanted and dreamed to be is you kept your knee on our neck,” he said. “It’s time for us to stand up in George’s name and say, ‘Get your knee off our necks!’”

      How is it that anyone can listen to this fraud and not laugh out loud. How many blacks are holding high offices in government and business or are successful entrepreneurs or have good paying jobs? Who kept a knee of their necks? He is a silly, corrupt man who is a perfect fit for MSNBC. Even with Sharpton’s history of betraying his “brothers” like Floyd by being a police informant, or his trying to extort money from the city of New York over a made up rape charge, or his tax evasion, among other things, it’s pretty damn clear there’s never been a knee on his neck. Statistics give the lie to all of his blather but liberals still gobble it up. I will give him this. I suspect that only he could say with a straight face that he’s “standing up” in the name of a convicted felon who after prison abandoned his daughter in order to move to Milwaukee and was still doing illegal drugs when he died. Floyd’s death may have been wrongful (although the Minneapolis PD apparently taught its officers to use that particular restraining method) but I think it was Young who posted a video of a mentally challenged white man in his twenties in Dallas who had done some drugs and was being held down by the police in a similar way (knee in the back, head pressed down). The officers stood around laughing as the young man was having trouble breathing. And then, he stopped breathing. Even though it happened only a few hundred miles from here, I never heard anything about it. No black person in Dallas or any place else stood up for him. No national media wrote about him. They never do. It seems pretty obvious that to them and their supporters, including ASO, it is only black lives that matter.

      1. It was a racist comment. There is no way to dispute that. She should be ashamed. It seems to me that the looters were of all different colors.

        Those who don’t recognize that should be ashamed of themselves

        Don’t be a “Hans Frank” and use twisted logic to justify straight up bigotry. There may be a point in the argument but that racist BS cancels any argument out.

        When did folks quit being decent?

        wtf people?

        1. Let’s not pretend that the overwhelming majority of looting has been from a ‘diverse’ population. These were not protesters or even agitators. They were simply opportunistic criminals.

          So, yes, there is a way to dispute it and I just did. Now is the part where you call me a racist because I disagree with you.

      2. “No national media wrote about him.”

        That’s false. If you search on his name, Tony Timpa, you can find reporting from the NYT, the Washington Post, CNN, … In fact, it was only through the perseverance of Cary Aspinwall of the Dallas News that the video of his death — a police video — became public (see the second tweet in the thread for a link to her earlier reporting, and you can look up her later report after she finally obtained the video): https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1267063318818238465

        Also, it’s too bad that you chose to be silent about your errors here:
        https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/05/mea-culpa-new-york-times-caves-to-protests-and-apologizes-for-posting-conservative-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-1962191

        1. There was no reporting that I can find in 2016 when this young white man died in police custody. Since news outlets always monitor police and EMS frequencies, it is highly likely that the fact of the custodial death would have been known. Then, when the Dallas police stonewalled, only one new organization cared enough to follow it up. I cannot imagine this scenario had the young man been black. Of course when the awful video finally was released several outlets carried the story in 2019. Did any black leaders stand up for this man after the story finally was reported? I have not been able to find any. If there are any then I will take back what I have said.

          1. You say “I cannot imagine this scenario had the young man been black,” but the fact that you can’t imagine it doesn’t imply that it hasn’t happened.

            You have a conjecture that a similar situation of a black man dying in police custody always gets news reports.

            To test your conjecture, the next step would be to gather data about the names and races of people who die in police custody. Then you’d test the list of names of black people against news reports to see whether there are news reports about all of them. If you find some that weren’t reported in the media, that would be evidence that your conjecture is false. Maybe your conjecture is instead true, but there’s no way to know unless you actually research it.

            I have a different conjecture than you. My conjecture is that regardless of race, lots of deaths in police custody get no media coverage, and that it’s videos of the deaths that tend to prompt coverage. Here, too, I’d need to gather data and test it for it to move beyond conjecture.

            1. If you’re going to look at data, why not just look at police involved killings and the context of those events and use those to determine if systematic racism among US law enforcement is measurable?

      3. Imagine saying “The BLACKS are looting and destroying their environment. They deserve what they get” and being silent about the people of other races who are looting and destroying things.

        I think you’re smart enough to understand why the statement is racist, but for some reason you’re choosing not to deal with it.

        1. I think you’re smart enough to know that most images have shown blacks doing the looting. You might be smart enough to realize that a facebook post doesn’t represent careful research of all video imagery. People react to what they see, for better or worse.

          But let me ask you this – how do you or anyone else know if the George Floyd killing was racially motivated? Is it your assumption that every time a white cop does something unfair, illegal, or outright terrible that the motivation is always racially motivated when it’s a white cop vs a black suspect? If you’re that smart, please do enlighten the rest of us.

          1. Anonymous – the ones looting Scottsdale Fashion Square were mostly white. Does that make you feel better? 😉

            1. Paul C Schulte – did I say there were no images of white looters, or did i say something different? does that make you feel better?

  11. I want to hear calls for their termination of employment. They are violent offenders who are a risk of trying to violently attack those they don’t agree with… I’m sure there are people in their firms who they don’t agree with and whose lives are now at risk. Also, they should be de-barred. Time for these law firms to fire them! Or risk the safety of their employees. And

  12. America has gone mad…from Judges to every day liberals in NY, IL, CA, MN and beyond

    https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/RecentCourtOrders/19-20-Orders/161394%202020-06-05%20or.pdf

    Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,

    v

    KARL MANKE,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    I agree with the Court’s order remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for plenary consideration. I write separately to briefly highlight some of the issues that will need to be addressed on remand.

    First, it appears patently clear that two members of the Court of Appeals motion panel have no power to grant peremptory relief. See MCR 7.211(C)(4) (“The decision to grant a motion for peremptory reversal must be unanimous.”). Doing so over Judge SWARTZLE’s explicit objection (and without responding to it) is inexplicable. In addition, the majority decided the important constitutional issues of first impression raised by defendant without plenary consideration, full briefing, oral argument, or an opportunity for amici curiae to file briefs. And it allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to argue these points as a basis for reversal even though the Department never responded to these arguments in the trial court. Finally, the Court of Appeals should address whether plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is rendered moot now that the Governor has ordered that barbershops can open statewide on June 15, 2020.

    It is incumbent on the courts to ensure decisions are made according to the rule of law, not hysteria.

    Here, in addition to entering an order whose validity is highly suspect, the Court of Appeals majority took the extraordinary step of directing the trial court to take immediate action despite the fact that an application for leave had already been filed in our Court.3 Typically, the filing of an application in our Court automatically “stays proceedings on remand unless the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court orders otherwise.” MCR 7.305(C)(7)(a). Whether it did so wittingly or unwittingly, the Court of Appeals appears to have ordered this case to proceed despite the filing of an application in our Court when the Court of Appeals gave its May 29, 2020 order immediate effect.

    Courts decide legal questions that arise in the cases that come before us according to the rule of law. One hopes that this great principle—essential to any free society, including ours—will not itself become yet another casualty of COVID-19.

  13. Far better way to handle it than the Patriot Act version of replacing probable cause with ‘suspicion of.’ The second was meant for non citizens but apparently the Congress left out excluding Citizens and perhaps even Congress. Thus the sudden appearance of a supposed sunset law.

  14. Is the BigLaw firm which employs Salma Rizvi going to give her the gate, or does that happen only to really egregious offenders, like people who tweet, “‘All Lives Matter. Every Last One”.?

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: