Left: Russell Taylor at the Capitol on Jan. 6 (Department of Justice). Center: A photo that DOJ prosecutors say is Christopher Belliveau inside the U.S. Capitol (Department of Justice). Right: A photo that DOJ prosecutors say is Thomas Tatum at the U.S. Capitol (Department of Justice).
A Jan. 6 rioter who enlisted the help of his Mormon lawmaker “friends” to try and get permission to attend Donald Trump‘s inauguration has been denied, along with a man from Maine who is accused of wielding a hockey stick and a bullhorn during the 2021 attack and a Mississippi defendant who allegedly harassed cops with a flagpole.
Russell Taylor, who pleaded guilty earlier this year to obstruction of an official proceeding — a charge that the Supreme Court ruled in June was wrongly applied to Jan. 6 defendants — had his request shot down on Friday by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Ronald Reagan appointee. Taylor, a California resident with ties to Utah, is on probation for storming the U.S. Capitol with a knife, bear spray, hatchet and other weapons.
Maine resident Christopher Belliveau, who has pleaded not guilty to his Jan. 6 charges, was denied Thursday by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee. Thomas Eugene Tatum, also known as Tommy Tatum, of Mississippi, had his request struck down Saturday by U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, as he faces charges for felony civil disorder by obstructing, impeding, or interfering with law enforcement officers engaged in official duties, as well as other misdemeanors.
Taylor had received help from his Mormon lawmaker buddies to get the Jan. 20 green light, with them asking Lamberth to grant him permission to go back to Washington in a letter. Taylor’s attorney, Dyke E. Huish, pointed out how he quickly admitted guilt and cooperated with federal authorities to put members of the extremist Three Percenters militia group behind bars by testifying against them.
Belliveau filed a motion last month claiming his lack of a violent past warrants a modification of his conditions of release. Tatum, who has made headlines for harassing officers at Jan. 6 trials and attending “prayer vigils” held at a jail outside of Washington where Jan. 6 defendants have been locked up, asked to attend as a “journalist” — saying he attended congressional hearings and court proceedings in the past without being denied access.
Justice Department prosecutors argued against allowing all three of the defendants to attend, saying it would be inappropriate and unsafe.
“Mr. Taylor’s cooperation and good conduct while on probation do not diminish the seriousness of his acts on January 6, 2021, to which he has voluntary admitted, nor do they entitle him to the permission he now seeks,” Lamberth wrote in his Jan. 3 order denying Taylor’s request, which was viewed by Law&Crime.
“To attend the Presidential Inauguration, which celebrates and honors the peaceful transfer of power, is an immense privilege,” Lamberth said. “It would not be appropriate for the Court to grant permission to attend such a hallowed event to someone who carried weapons and threatened police officers in an attempt to thwart the last Inauguration, and who openly glorified ‘insurrection’ against the United States.”
Kelly denied Belliveau’s request at a Jan. 2 hearing that came after prosecutors argued that allowing his travel to Washington “places Capitol Police Officers in danger,” per a Dec. 30 filing.
“Belliveau argues that his lack of violent past warrants a modification of his conditions of release,” the prosecutors said. “But that makes his return to the Capitol even more concerning — Belliveau was only willing to engage in violence against Capitol Police Officers who were trying to keep a crowd of rioters under control.”
Bates, in Tatum’s case, pointed to the “breadth and depth of charges” he’s facing for his Jan. 6 conduct, “nearly all of which involve physical violence or the use of a dangerous or deadly weapon,” the judge said.
“The government avers that it has video evidence of this conduct. Hence, the Court concludes that the prohibition on unauthorized travel to the District of Columbia remains a necessary condition of release to ensure community safety,” Bates concluded.
Lamberth, in Taylor’s case, applauded him for “commendably” taking responsibility for his actions and furnishing “extensive assistance to the government” against the Three Percenters. “For this, he earned a probationary sentence — which … is drastically more lenient than the sentences each of his co-defendants received,” Lamberth said.
The Cold War-era judge also wrote that the court “duly considered” the letter from Utah lawmakers endorsing Taylor’s character, but he took no position on Taylor’s “good attributes to which the letter gestures, namely his ‘integrity,’ ‘faith,’ family values, and service to the less fortunate,”” Lamberth said.
“Such personal attributes may inform the Court’s decision at sentencing, but to reiterate, Mr. Taylor already received an unusually lenient sentence relative to the acts he committed,” Lamberth explained. “In addition to his cooperation and acceptance of responsibility, that sentence took into account many of the attributes mentioned in the letter: Mr. Taylor’s otherwise law-abiding life, steady employment, lack of drug use, family support, and community involvement, among other factors. However, Mr. Taylor’s good traits and adherence to his terms of probation are of only marginal importance to the motion at hand.”
According to Lamberth, Taylor’s request presented the “narrow question” of whether a person who conspired and acted to “thwart the peaceful transfer of power four years ago with incitement, threats, and weapons” should now be granted special permission to attend the exact same event.
“The answer to that question is ‘no,’ whether or not he is, generally speaking, a good person,” Lamberth concluded.
Taylor’s attorney, Dyke E. Huish, told Law&Crime last month that Taylor was expected to spend most of his time in Maryland during his trip. He said if Taylor were asked today about his thoughts on the 2020 election, he would still think the same thing — that the results “should have been sent back to the states for proper evaluation,” according to Huish.
“It never has changed,” he said of Taylor’s position. “I can say on his behalf, Mr. Taylor always believed that this matter should have been sent back to the states. However, he personally went too far that day, and for that, he took responsibility.”
Two other Jan. 6 defendants, William Pope and Cindy Young, are currently waiting for rulings from each of their respective judges after filing similar requests to travel for the inauguration. Prosecutors have been fighting to keep both away as defendants in other cases have been granted approval in recent weeks.
