top of page
Search

The Red Pedigree of Judge Tanya Chutkan

WANTED: An appellate court to overturn the J6 convictions on the grounds of judicial bias,

as it did with the convictions of the Chicago 7


Half a century ago, a federal appeals court overturned the convictions related to incitement of rioting at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.


Here's how the Associated Press reported the 1972 decision.


CHICAGO -- Declaring that the trial judge took an "often antagonistic view of the defense," a federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of five antiwar activists in the case of the Chicago 7.


Stop right there. Is there any J6 trial judge who doesn't take "often antagonistic view of the defense"? Look at them -- Chutkan, Mehta, Howell, for example. Their lips are permanently curled from presiding over one J6 show trial after another; the better, perhaps, to mete out their excessive, vindictive and cruel sentences against today's Sons and Daughters of Liberty, those American citizens who went to the Washington to stand up for the sanctity of the ballot. Our ballot. Our sovereign right to elect our president. They were not there to "overturn an election." Those are just words that have been crudely pasted over events to distort and hide what really happened. The real-life patriots who went to Washington "to stop the steal" were there in support of constitutional means to prevent an election from being overturned through fraud -- in support of the constitutional process to return contested presidential election results to the states for resolution, before it was too late.


Who remembers now (or knew then) that over 100 hundred legislators from the contested battleground states sent letters to Vice President Benedict Pence asking him to delay the January 6 certification for 10 days? Had news media existed, not just so many state-propaganda-units, this historic, political earthquake would have been banner news. Instead, I am not sure if any outlet besides Just the News even reported it.


Here is an excerpt from one of the letters, signed by 88 state Republican legislators:


We write to ask you to comply with our reasonable request to afford our nation more time to properly review the 2020 election by postponing the January 6th opening and counting of the electoral votes for at least 10 days, affording our respective bodies to meet, investigate, and as a body vote on certification or decertification of the election. This action can be completed prior to the inauguration date, as required by the Constitution.


"That letter," John Solomon reported on January 5, 2021, "attached an appendix listing irregularities and illegalities in the battleground states where Trump has contested the election results showing Biden the winner. The appendix, the lawmakers wrote, "provides evidence of a coordinated and structured multi-state effort to undermine state law protecting election integrity."


The lawmakers' letter continued:


We intend on fulfilling our oaths of office by properly investigating and determining whether the election should be certified, or decertified, by our respective state legislatures. Additional time must be afforded for the legislatures to meet and for state legislators to fulfill their constitutional duties.


Additional time. The last thing the Election-Stealers of 2020 wanted was additional time. Additional light. Additional investigation and additional deliberation by state legislatures. The steal had to take place in the dark. That's where the so-called deep state functions. Its anti-democratic, anti-American stealth informants, assets, traitors to the Constitution were already in place; its undercover units, from Metro Police to the Pentagon special operators, were already primed to agitate or surveil or carry false flags forward on Capitol Hill. Steps were additionally taken to deny President Trump's order to call up extra security to control the vast crowd. After all, the arrival of National Guard would have ensured an orderly day at the Capitol. Order would have ruined everything!


And now? To prevent this colossal treason from coming to light, the regime has instituted its permanent reign of judicial terror: ever-expanding dragnets, continuing arrests, destroying families, businesses, and communities, plus show trials and prison sentences that are shocking and even paralyzing in their draconian force. Throwing American citizens into a gulag for misdemeanors by fiat transformed into acts of "terrorism" becomes so much pseudo-legal camouflage for what is in reality the fiery flame-out, the crash-and-burn of the United States of America into one-party tyranny. Order in the court. What a scam.


Let's see how the judicial system worked in 1972.


The ruling Tuesday by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals climaxed a controversial case which stems from street rioting during the week of the Democratic National Convention here in 1968. The five anti-war activists who were convicted two years ago of inciting the rioting were David T. Dellinger, 56; Rennard C. "Rennie" Davis, 32; Abbott "Abbie" Hoffman, 33; Jerry C. Rubin, 33; and Thomas E. Hayden, 32.


They were sentenced to five years in prison and fined $5,000 each.


Five years? Let that sink in. Five years was the maximum sentence for inciting the DNC street rioting which a 2008 monograph prepared for the Federal Judicial History Office called "the violence surrounding one of the essential rites of American democracy." January 6, dude? No, Chicago '68, man. Back then, not only did an appeals court see fit to claw back the constitutional rights of anti-government, even openly revolutionary defendants, but the U.S. government hadn't yet tyrannized itself with that cruel and unusual legal perversion on steroids known a "terrorism enhancement" to "escalate" minor charges into 10-, 15-, 17-year stretches. Further, those five convicted Chicago rioters fifty years ago were not, as J6ers are now, subjected to years of pretrial detention in inhumane conditions, including physical abuse and torture; they were free on bail for the three years their case took to wend its way from indictment to conviction to appeal. It was a vacation next to the cruelty and force inflicted on Trump supporters (not BLM or Antifa, of course) by today's "justice" system.


Back to 1972:


They were sentenced to five years in prison and fined $5,000 each.


But the appeals court ruled that their constitutional rights may have been violated in the bitter four-month trial before U.S. District Court Judge Julius J. Hoffman. ...


Amazing. They had constitutional rights.


The New York Times in 1972 added:


In language sharply critical of Judge Hoffman's controversial conduct of the case, the opinions said his "deprecatory and often antagonistic attitude toward the defense is evident in the record from the very beginning. It appears in remarks both in the presence and absence of the jury."


What a difference a half century makes. Today, not only does a "deprecatory and antagonistic attitude toward the defense" not trigger appellate reversal, darned if such "attitude" isn't the new judicial temperament -- the baseline requirement for a federal judgeship. Indeed, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan goes farther than expressing animus against Trump and his supporters. Chutkan has even exulted from the bench on the righteousness of the violent and destructive Marxist-BLM protests of 2020. Reaction? Institutional ho-hum. Thankfully, one congressman, Rep. Matt Gaetz, introduced on August 17 a House resolution censuring and condemning Judge Chutkan for her "open bias and partisanship in the conduct of her duties as a judge."


I was going to quote from the Gaetz resolution but it's not that long, so following is the full text. It is urgently important reading because undoubtedly Chutkan's outbursts will be news to many readers.


RESOLUTION


Censuring and condemning United States District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.


Whereas United States District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has exhibited open bias and partisanship in the conduct of her official duties as a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia;


Whereas, for example, in a sentencing related to January 6, on October 4, 2021, Chutkan issued a bizarre rant, opining that ‘‘People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man . . . to compare the actions of people protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights, to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores a very real danger that the January 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy.’’;


Whereas the violent protests of 2020 resulted in numerous injuries to law enforcement, including the firebombing of police vehicles, resulted in serious injuries to law enforcement, first responders, civilians, and property, and resulted in felony convictions and debarments of rioters from practicing law;


Whereas Judge Chutkan’s expressed support for the violent protests in the summer of 2020 is conduct unbecoming a judge;


Whereas the defendant before Judge Chutkan on October 4, 2021, was a nonviolent offender who spent merely 12 minutes on Capitol grounds, and who urged others to remain peaceful on January 6, 2021;


Whereas Judge Chutkan’s comments raise serious concerns about the fairness and constitutionality of the sentencing of that defendant, or other defendants in cases relating to January 6;


Whereas Chutkan donated thousands of dollars to elect Barack Obama;


Whereas, in a more recent sentencing hearing in October 2022, Chutkan lamented that Donald Trump ‘‘remains free to this day’’ [emphasis added];


Whereas such partisan commentary by Judge Chutkan has been ongoing and calls into question her fitness as a judge; and


Whereas Chutkan’s comments and activities on and off the bench violate all 5 canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges; namely, calling into question the integrity and independence of the judiciary; presenting impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; failing to perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially, and diligently; engaging in extrajudicial activities inconsistent with the obligations of the office; and engaging in political activity: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That—


(1) United States District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan be censured and condemned; and


(2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives shall forthwith initiate an investigation into Tanya Chutkan, for the purpose of gathering evidence relevant to the duties of Congress under article II, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


Be it also resolved that it is stunning -- like a blow to the solar plexus -- that this is where we are as a country.


Judge Chutkan -- she who laments that Donald Trump "remains free to this day" (I can't get over that one) -- now presides over his federal persecution. That this outrage is not widely seen as an outrage is another, quite significant notch in our descent into tyranny. Fairness, non-partisanship do not even rate lip service anymore. This same Judge Chutkan, deemed fit to preside over Donald Trump's case, has also extremely-non-judicially described President Trump (when referring to another defendant also entitled to fairness and non-partisanship) as "his guy."


His guy. This contempt for both Trump and the American citizen who supports him, throbbing through Tanya Chutkan, has no place leaking out all over the bench, and especially not the one Donald Trump is to come before. After about 30 cases related to J6, analyzed for "politically charged rulings" and "incendiary statements" by Julie Kelly here, the jury is in: Judge Chutkan is a political animal, not a judicial one. Seriously -- what real judge sets the momentous federal court date for Donald Trump, the leading candidate of the political opposition, on the day before Super Tuesday? That's not judicial temperament; that's political activism, and it needs to stop.


One wonders where this activist streak comes from. Thanks to Jon Levine at the New York Post, it is now possible to see that Tanya Chutkan has a shocking Red pedigree. Chutkan, Levine writes, is nothing less than "the scion of a family of revolutionary Marxists in her native Jamaica." This was news to me, but it surely fits. Like Obama who elevated her to the bench, like Valerie Jarrett, like David Axelrod and so many others, Judge Chutkan's communist and revolutionary roots are long. Levine reports that Chutkan is the "granddaughter of Frank Hill, a Jamaican communist revolutionary, who, along with his brother Ken, [was] briefly jailed by the island’s British governor during World War II over suspicions of “subversive activities.”


The linked story from the original NYP story about "subversive activities" is none too illuminating; however, John Barnes, a noted British footballer and, by my genealogical calculations, first-cousin of Chutkan, picks up the story here to explain that Grandfather Frank Hill, Great Uncle Ken Hill, Richard Hart and Arthur Henry -- once known as the Four H's -- were released in March 1943 thanks to the intercession of far-left British Labour politician Sir Stafford Cripps. This is an intriguing bit of history given Cripps' politics (for example, the Labour Party expelled Cripps in 1939 for advocating unity with the Communist Party) and his rivalry with Winston Churchill for leadership. Perhaps there were unexplored power plays underway in wartime West Indies.


And possibly they came to a crashing halt in 1952 when the Hill brothers -- Grandfather Frank and Great Uncle Ken, at that time mayor of Kingston -- and their old comrades, Richard Hart and Arthur Henry, made headlines again. This time it was for their very public expulsion as a group from the Peoples National Party (PNP) by party founder and later Jamaica-premier Norman Manley. The reason? According to the story, a yearlong investigation by a PNP tribunal revealed the four men were engaged in "communist activities."


The 1952 Associated Negro Press (ANP) story -- by the way, Obama's mentor (and possible father), Marxist Frank Marshall Davis, was executive editor of ANP through 1947 -- offers details about the charges. These included "intolerance in the extreme"; and the "application of the Marxist technique of destruction ... because we dared challenge this leftist line."


That's enough for me. Put a judge's robe on it and you've got a match. But let's continue.


The group was also involved in disseminating standard communist literature -- Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Harry Pollitt, then head of the British CP. Clearly, this tight cadre Judge Chutkan descends from was building a Marxist support base on Jamaica. The group also, as the ANP story relates, had "recruits swear an oath on the gun instead of on the Bible."


Perhaps not surprisingly, then, the expelled communists did not go quietly. "Police tear gas squads had to be called when the Red faction punctured the tires of the cars of the right-wingers of the party who had arrived at the drastic decision against them."


Hmm. What say Judge Chutkan? It is certainly relevant to our nation's fate to know whether this federal judge repudiates the violence and revolutionary activities of her Marxist grandpa's and great-uncle's "Red faction." Or would she label it all more "mostly peaceful" protest, as she did with BLM?


Our next real glimpse of Chutkan's family lineage in American media appears in 1969. (Before I forget, I should note that the Hills' brother in arms (tire punctures?) Richard Hart finally came into communist power in 1982 on the island of Grenada, where he served as Maurice Bishop's Attorney General until the 1983 US invasion.) By the late 1960s, Marxism, Caribbean-style, had given way or been rebranded as "black power," the movement du jour.


From the Tampa Bay Times, October 26, 1969.


A small but growing black power movement is worrying the men responsible for Jamaica's tourism and industrial development boom.


Black power's complaints against foreign exploitation have touched a nationalist nerve in the island republic....


Tourism was dumping hundreds of millions of dollars on Jamaica every year, the newspaper explained, but the hotels were foreign-built and-owned, and that was a "black power" problem. (I looked: Trump doesn't own a resort in Jamaica. But still.) The report continued:


Robert Hill, editor of the black power newspaper Abeng, takes the grudge a step further. Jamaican tourism, he says, is built on "black submissiveness," evoking the days of colonialism and slavery when the prosperity of British planters was borne on the broad black backs of Jamaican field hands.


And it's not at all insane to equate the tourism industry with slavery.


Noting that a wing of the black power movement was developing "around Abeng and its editor," the Tampa Bay Times went on:


Its [Abeng's] message is violent revolution. "Jamaican society," says editor Hill, "is the most disastrous form of colonialism ever introduced anywhere on earth."


"What's more," he says with absolute finality, "there is no way to change it short of violent revolution."


Really? That's what Judge Chutkan's Uncle Bob said. Whether little Tanya, born in Kingston, Jamaica in 1962, even knows this is an open question. She was only seven years old at the time of Robert Hill's rather spicy interview. Had Tanya's family emigrated to the United States and begun to enjoy its success and advancement in American society yet? It is not public information when Chutkan came to the United States; I assume she became a citizen but that is not public information, either. As with her avowedly Marxist grandfather's revolutionary activities in the 1950s, the question is whether Chutkan, an officer of the US federal court, would now repudiate her uncle's clear call for "violent revolution" in the 1960s. Then again, maybe she'd call it mostly-peaceful-violent-revolution, BLM-style. Activists, not judges, are like that.


I am not suggesting that Tanya Chutkan is a carbon copy of, or responsible for, her forbears, or that she doesn't think for herself. However, she is a US federal judge, which is an extremely powerful and privileged position. She is ruling on these most vital constitutional issues without her membership in a prominent revolutionary family from Jamaica having become public knowledge. She has never been asked to address this matter, and, as a judge sworn to be bound by the US Constitution, she has never been asked to repudiate the revolutionary activities and violent rhetoric of her notorious family members. I suppose this is all more soul-searing evidence of how very far we have fallen as a republic; that it is a scion of Jamaican Marxists, appointed by the protege (possibly son) of an American Marxist, who presides over the judicial cover-up of the theft of legitimate power from the man who is the most anti-Communist President in American history.


Judging by Chutkan's J6 record, she will do so in high tyrannical judicial style, meting out yet another wildly unjust punishment to another defendant, whom, in true Marxist fashion, she is unable to treat impartially.


At least now we know it comes to her naturally.



  • Special Counsel Jack Smith

  • Merrick Garland

  • January 6

  • Obstruction of Official Proceeding

  • Free Speech

  • Hunter Biden

  • Joe Biden administration

  • January 6 prisoners

  • Washington DC juries

  • District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan

  • Change of venue motion

940 views13 comments
bottom of page