Recommending that the House of Representatives find Mark F. Pomerantz in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the terms of a lawful and valid congressional subpoena.

Subjects: Congress


<html><body><pre>[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 469 Introduced in House (IH)]

&lt;DOC&gt;






118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 469

 Recommending that the House of Representatives find Mark F. Pomerantz 
   in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the terms of a 
                lawful and valid congressional subpoena.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2023

Mr. Gaetz submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Recommending that the House of Representatives find Mark F. Pomerantz 
   in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the terms of a 
                lawful and valid congressional subpoena.

Whereas Mark F. Pomerantz of New York did receive a duly issued subpoena of the 
        United States House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the 
        Weaponization of the Federal Government dated April 6, 2023;
Whereas Mark F. Pomerantz did, after a frivolous legal challenge to said 
        subpoena, appear and testify under compulsion before the select 
        subcommittee;
Whereas a Federal judge in a relevant court order of April 19, 2023, explicitly 
        stated: ``Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No 
        one is above the law.'';
Whereas the judge in her court order further noted: ``Pomerantz is in this 
        situation because he decided to inject himself into the public debate by 
        authoring a book that he has described as `appropriate and in the public 
        interest'.'';
Whereas Mark F. Pomerantz did so testify under oath and with his counsel present 
        on May 12, 2023;
Whereas Mark F. Pomerantz did frivolously refuse to answer numerous questions of 
        the select subcommittee, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against 
        self-incrimination to such questions as ``Do you respect Alvin Bragg?'';
Whereas, subsequently, in response to a question of Representative Stefanik of 
        New York, ``So there are no lies in [the book you wrote]? You stand 
        fully behind this publication under your name?'', Mark F. Pomerantz did 
        reply ``That's correct'';
Whereas the Supreme Court, beginning with Escobedo v. Illinois (378 U.S. 478 
        (1964)), has repeatedly held that an individual may ``intelligently and 
        knowingly waive his [Fifth Amendment] privilege against self-
        incrimination'' by testifying about a matter;
Whereas Mark F. Pomerantz, in the presence of his counsel and after having been 
        apprised of his rights, and having had those rights respected by the 
        select subcommittee members and staff, did waive his Fifth Amendment 
        right against self-incrimination intelligently and knowingly when he 
        asserted that the claims in his book were all true;
Whereas the constitutional validity of this waiver was made clear to Mark F. 
        Pomerantz and his counsel by Representative Issa of California, ``The 
        Fifth Amendment and it being waived or not waived is fairly clear. If 
        you answer a question related to something, and you've answered it, then 
        a follow-up is based on the waive as to that.'' and Representative Gaetz 
        of Florida, ``You've heard of subject matter waiver before, right?'';
Whereas Mark F. Pomerantz subsequently was cross-examined on the contents of his 
        book by both Democratic and Republican staff and Members of Congress, 
        and did falsely assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-
        incrimination to them well over 100 times, declining to answer numerous 
        questions about the content of his book; and
Whereas Mark F. Pomerantz is on notice that failing to comply with the terms of 
        a lawful and valid congressional subpoena is a violation of Federal law: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall find Mark F. 
Pomerantz in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with the terms 
of a lawful and valid congressional subpoena and shall order the 
Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives to summon him.
    Resolved,  That the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall 
otherwise take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
                                 &lt;all&gt;
</pre></body></html>