Federal judge orders Blaze News’ Steve Baker to ‘comply’ with release conditions; Baker says he has

News & Politics

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday ordered Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker to “comply” with the conditions of his release following his March 1 arrest in Dallas over his January 6 reporting — but Baker told Blaze News he’s been in compliance all along.

What are the details?

Baker told Blaze News he received a complaint Friday from the U.S. District Court in D.C. outlining pre-trial conditions of his release — and that a D.C. pretrial services officer stated as part of it that Baker is not in compliance with some of them. Baker told Blaze News the assertions aren’t correct.

What’s more, the presiding judge in Baker’s case — Christopher R. Cooper — on Monday issued the following minute order: “In light of the … Pretrial Violation Report, Mr. Baker is hereby ordered to comply with his conditions of release, as directed by his pretrial services officer.”

Image source: Blaze News

Cooper’s words — publicly available — got around Monday:

Baker told Blaze News that according to his pre-trial restrictions, he’s not allowed to possess a firearm and he has to report every contact he has with law enforcement to his pretrial services officer.

But this presents two problems for Baker: He told Blaze News he carries a gun as a means of self-defense due to online threats he’s received, and part of his job with Blaze News is speaking to law enforcement personnel — and doing so confidentially.

Baker told Blaze News he explained all of this to his North Carolina pretrial services officer, and things seemed well on both fronts. But Baker said despite that, the D.C. pretrial services officer after that somehow reported Baker as being in noncompliance with both conditions, which Baker told Blaze News is not the case.

Baker also told Blaze News that the D.C. pretrial services officer said he was in noncompliance because he didn’t want to remove firearms from his North Carolina home due to threats against him — but Baker again told Blaze News that’s not accurate.

In fact, Baker added to Blaze News that he turned in his handgun to his attorney in Dallas prior to his March 1 surrender, that his gun is now stored in his attorney’s safe, and that he hasn’t been carrying since then. Baker added to Blaze News: “I am NOT carrying now and am in complete compliance in that regard.”

As for the condition of reporting law enforcement contacts, Baker noted to Blaze News that the D.C. pretrial services officer misinterpreted his conversation with the North Carolina pretrial services officer and, again, incorrectly found Baker in noncompliance.

What’s more, Baker told Blaze News his attorneys have been in the process of getting the language of his pertinent pre-trial conditions adjusted, which should happen soon. But Baker said Monday’s order to comply wasn’t pleasant to read about online.

Baker issued the following statement to Blaze News:

“To say this is all ‘new to me’ is an understatement. My attorneys tell me this kind of tedium and ‘nothing burgers’ are to be expected as I go through this process. In this instance, I’m trying to accept that it’s nothing more than the left hand of the D.C. pre-trial services officer not knowing what the right hand of my N.C. pre-trial services officer has already taken care of. But it doesn’t seem like it. While the complaint I received Friday lists how I am allegedly not in compliance with some of my pretrial release conditions, it also states my initial meeting with my N.C. pre-trial services officer already is scheduled, and everything will be handled — per agreement — at that time. D.C. even acknowledged that I have not yet been home since my self-surrender and release, so how could I have possibly been out of compliance with regard to firearms at my home while I’m still on the road and away from my home? My N.C. pre-trial services officer already arranged these things to be dealt with upon my return to N.C.

“Then, this morning, I got an order from the judge to ‘comply’?

“Respectfully, to the court: Each item already has been arranged, per the court’s order, in an amicable and agreed-upon timeline with my pre-trial services officer according to my travel schedule and date of return to my residence in N.C. The other items are also already being taken care of in a reasonable exchange between my attorney and the prosecutor. The fact is, I am in full compliance and intend to remain so. My N.C. pre-trial services officer thus far has been a pleasure to work with and has given me no indication that I need to handle things differently. I do believe that if the court had been made fully aware of my compliance and the pending and agreed-upon arrangements with my return to N.C., that public order to ‘comply’ would have been unnecessary.”

Here’s an interview Tucker Carlson conducted with Baker last week on his legal ordeal with the federal government:

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Articles You May Like

West Virginia Middle School Track Competitors ‘Step Out’ to Protest Transgender Runner
Nebraska deputies catch naked married substitute teacher in car with student, chase ensues that ends in vehicle crashing: Police
Globalist Tusk’s Polish Government Pushes Abortion in Parliament, so the European Union Releases Funds It Withheld From Previous Conservative Administration
ABC, NBC OMIT SCOTUS’ Refusal To Halt Idaho Ban On Child Mutilation
‘Weak’ Appeaser: GOP Figures Blame Biden as Iran Attacks Israel

Leave a Comment - No Links Allowed:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *