Los Angeles, California – Federal prosecutors have filed an emergency order urging the court to keep Robert Rundo, the leader of a white supremacist group, in prison following the dismissal of their case against him. The case involves Rundo’s involvement with the far-right white supremacist organization called the Rise Above Movement. Judge Cormac Carney’s decision led to the release of Rundo and two other members from federal prison, but the prosecution is aiming to reverse that outcome.
Judge Carney dismissed the indictment on the grounds of selective prosecution, stating that there were individuals engaging in violent acts on both sides of the political spectrum. He argued that the government had chosen not to prosecute far-left extremist groups, such as Antifa, who had participated in the same protests and rallies and were involved in similar violent acts as the defendants in this case.
Carney maintained that it was unconstitutional for the government to only prosecute members of the Rise Above Movement, while disregarding the violence perpetrated by Antifa and other far-left groups. He emphasized that this differential treatment was based on the belief that the speech of the Rise Above Movement was more offensive.
It is worth noting that this is the second time Judge Carney has dismissed the same case. Earlier, his dismissal was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court, leading to a continuation of the legal proceedings. Now, with the emergency stay motion, the United States Attorney argues that Rundo should remain in prison due to his previous attempt to flee to Romania. They fear he may do so again if given the opportunity.
The prosecutor’s urgency in keeping Rundo in prison highlights the ongoing battle to bring members of far-right white supremacist groups to justice. This case raises questions about the government’s approach to prosecuting acts of violence linked to extremist ideologies and the potential consequences of selective prosecution.
The dismissal of this case may also have wider implications for future prosecutions involving similar groups. It draws attention to the challenges faced by law enforcement when addressing political violence and the need for a consistent and impartial approach in addressing acts of violence, irrespective of the ideological affiliation of the perpetrators.
As the legal proceedings unfold, both sides will present their arguments once again, and the court will have to weigh the evidence and consider the constitutional and ethical implications. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly serve as a precedent for future prosecutions involving white supremacist groups and may have a significant impact on how the justice system handles cases of political violence.