KEY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Why did law enforcement hesitate to intervene to protect Richard Blasi from the repeated violence from both Michael Stewart and Sean Anderson?

Who was the law enforcement officer who publicly stated in the presence of Richard Mahoney: “He [Blasi] shouldn’t have been there – he [Blasi] deserved it!”

With Sean Anderson wearing a bandana to conceal his identity as he beat Richard Blasi outside the Capitol, a factor in applying aggravated assault, why was Sean Anderon not detained outside the Capitol and charged with aggravated assault?

Did law enforcement accompany both Michael Stewart and Sean Anderson from the east side into the Capitol?

Why were Michael Stewart and Sean Anderson, after assaulting Richard Blasi outside the Capitol and in the clear view of law enforcement, released and permitted access to inside the Capitol?

Who was that supervising law enforcement officer(s) questioned Michael Stewart and/or Sean Anderson and allowed them to continue into the Capitol at the risk of further violence?

When Chief Counsel Pat Doran told Karla Delgado that Michael Stewart would be arrested if he entered the Capitol, was that a lie or did someone change the policy later?

On what grounds did Chief Counsel Pat Doran assure Karla Delgado that she and her family would be safe inside the Capitol?

Was law enforcement instructed to allow Michael Stewart
to perform his satanic ceremony outside and inside the Capitol?

Why in the assault incident inside the Capitol where Michael Stewart repeatedly punched Marcus Schroeder did Stewart and Schroeder receive identical charges of disorderly conduct?

Why did law enforcement not immediately arrest Michael Stewart once he clearly and loudly initiated his satanic ceremony inside the Capitol?

With weeks to plan and protect the public, were law enforcement officers wearing police cameras during these incidents so we can ascertain what happened in these violent assaults?

Under federal hate crimes law, actions precipitated by the actual or perceived religion of any person are serious offenses and should be prosecuted as such.[1] Will the Acting U.S. Attorney pursue hate crimes charges against Michael Stewart and Sean Anderson for their violent actions against Christians and particularly Catholics on March 28, 2025?

One hundred years ago, with the support of a majority of Kansas voters and the U.S. Supreme Court, political leaders in Kansas refused to recognize the Ku Klux Klan and drove their organized hatred from the state of Kansas. Will we do the same in 2025?

On April 7, 2003, in the case of Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held that states, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross-burning with the intent to intimidate. Is this satanic campaign of the public Black Mass not meant to intimidate Catholics and other Christians simply because of their faith? [2]

[1] See 18 U.S. Code § 249.
[2] In the Virginia v. Black opinion: “… The protection supported by the First Amendment however is not absolute and the Government may prohibit true threats. True threats encompass those statements where the seeker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat.