Posted on Apr 16, 2021
Judge Orders ‘Bullhorn Lady’ to Explain Why She Shouldn't Be Jailed for Mocking Court Order by...
483
10
3
5
5
0
An accused U.S. Capitol rioter known online as “Bullhorn Lady” has been ordered to explain why her pre-trial release shouldn’t be revoked after Law&Crime reported that she appeared to have been recorded in a bookstore wearing a mask with holes in it — in possible violation of court-ordered conditions for staying out of jail.
As Law&Crime discussed at length on April 9, a since-deleted video posted at the end of March on the Facebook page of Mr. Bookman’s — a used book store in Western Pennsylvania — showed an individual who appeared to be Rachel Powell wearing a mesh mask. The problem was that Powell, as a unique condition of her pretrial release, was ordered by Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell to “wear a mask whenever she leaves her residence.”
As Law&Crime discussed at length on April 9, a since-deleted video posted at the end of March on the Facebook page of Mr. Bookman’s — a used book store in Western Pennsylvania — showed an individual who appeared to be Rachel Powell wearing a mesh mask. The problem was that Powell, as a unique condition of her pretrial release, was ordered by Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell to “wear a mask whenever she leaves her residence.”
Judge Orders ‘Bullhorn Lady’ to Explain Why She Shouldn't Be Jailed for Mocking Court Order by...
Posted from lawandcrime.com
Washington
Congress
Crime
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
If the order to wear a mask does not specify the requirements of a mask, she complied. She wore a mask.
This is no different than many of our SPCs (and PFCs and SGTs) who comply with the letter of an order rather than the intent. It is why providing not only mission but intent is absolutely VITAL for proper command and control. "Do pushups." Soldier drops and knocks out three pushups and gets back up - he DID do pushups. I had a Soldier who was supposed to sweep the office at end of shift (rotating duty - it was "his day."). It had been muddy that day, so I told him he needed to mop. He mopped - but never swept. I was exceptionally frustrated, but I realized before I even opened my mouth that I had not provided clear, unambiguous guidance. So I retrained, and he had the same task the following day. I told him to mop again, but don't forget to sweep. So he mopped, THEN swept. Again - my guidance was ambiguous to him. I failed to provide foolproof instructions.
If the judge ordered her to wear a mask "for the safety of herself and others" or some other similar language - and that language is in the written order, she is done for. But if he only ordered the wearing of a mask, regardless of what the "obvious intent" was, the order is ambiguous and the judge is at fault for leaving gaping loopholes, not the person who FOUND the loopholes.
This is no different than many of our SPCs (and PFCs and SGTs) who comply with the letter of an order rather than the intent. It is why providing not only mission but intent is absolutely VITAL for proper command and control. "Do pushups." Soldier drops and knocks out three pushups and gets back up - he DID do pushups. I had a Soldier who was supposed to sweep the office at end of shift (rotating duty - it was "his day."). It had been muddy that day, so I told him he needed to mop. He mopped - but never swept. I was exceptionally frustrated, but I realized before I even opened my mouth that I had not provided clear, unambiguous guidance. So I retrained, and he had the same task the following day. I told him to mop again, but don't forget to sweep. So he mopped, THEN swept. Again - my guidance was ambiguous to him. I failed to provide foolproof instructions.
If the judge ordered her to wear a mask "for the safety of herself and others" or some other similar language - and that language is in the written order, she is done for. But if he only ordered the wearing of a mask, regardless of what the "obvious intent" was, the order is ambiguous and the judge is at fault for leaving gaping loopholes, not the person who FOUND the loopholes.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google