In yet another display of bureaucratic resistance, Barton, who is required to seek permission to travel outside Texas, submitted a formal request to do so. His request, never denied outright at the outset, was subjected to an extended review process. After several days of scrutiny, Barton was informed that his request had been escalated to the highest authority in probation.
His intended travel to Washington, D.C., had multiple significant purposes: assisting in his daughter’s relocation and settling-in process, attending a critical legal meeting with his attorney, and accepting an invitation to the presidential inauguration. However, the approval was ultimately denied solely on the basis of his intent to attend the inauguration.
Barton was advised that if he wished to challenge the decision, he could request judicial intervention. In adherence to legal protocol, Barton’s attorney approached Rene Hunter, seeking her stance on the matter. Hunter’s response was categorical: she would object to any attempt to obtain judicial approval for the trip.
A motion was subsequently filed before the judge presiding over Barton’s DOJ case. However, the judge dismissed the matter, referring it down to the magistrate—a decision that seemed to signal its perceived insignificance in the eyes of the federal judiciary.
The final ruling was unequivocal. The judge’s response came with an unambiguous directive:
No inauguration attendance.
Read the full court order here.
Barton’s motion, which sought permission to meet with his legal counsel and attend the presidential inauguration of Donald J. Trump, was swiftly rejected by Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver in a move that raises further concerns about the fairness of the judicial proceedings surrounding his case.
Barton, who has been subjected to relentless legal battles at the hands of the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, sought permission to travel to D.C. in January. His reasons were twofold: to engage in crucial legal preparations for his ongoing appeal and to attend the historic inauguration alongside his daughter, who has previously worked with President Trump’s inauguration team. Despite the clear necessity of this trip, Judge Toliver deemed the motion “untimely” and dismissed it outright without considering the broader implications.
Barton was a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump and worked with his firm prior to Trump’s election. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) framed his involvement in a different light. In its press release, the DOJ characterized Barton’s actions as “selling political influence.” Read the full press release by DOJ here
This ruling, while cloaked in bureaucratic reasoning, underscores the systematic obstacles placed before Barton as he fights an aggressive and seemingly politically motivated legal battle. The justification provided by the court fails to acknowledge the critical importance of in-person legal meetings, particularly given the complexities of Barton’s case, Denial of due process to meet with his lawyer is being reviewed which involves a parallel SEC receivership action and ongoing appeals before the Fifth Circuit. His Washington-based attorney had explicitly requested his presence for a series of legal strategy meetings leading up to a key oral argument before the appellate court—an argument that could significantly impact the future of the case.
The denial of Barton’s request to attend the inauguration, a significant personal and family event, underscores the selective application of judicial discretion. While his entire family was invited and attended, he was deliberately excluded as a father. Courts have historically granted travel requests for far less consequential reasons, yet in this case, it was arbitrarily dismissed as a mere “social occasion.” This decision not only deprived Barton of experiencing a historic moment but also denied him the chance to support his own daughter’s involvement in the event.
Judge Starr as previously ordered punitive measures against the defendant in appointing receivership orders, and once again here at the DOJ, we witness the enforcement of this directive—this time by barring Barton from attending a once-in-a-lifetime event, far from an ordinary social gathering. The decision was clearly intended to penalize Barton, ensuring his absence was conspicuous and deeply felt. His family, particularly his daughter, bore the weight of this punishment, as friends and colleagues repeatedly questioned her about her father’s whereabouts.
The denial of travel was not a matter of protocol but an intentional act of retribution.
Barton’s case has long been marred by what appears to be a coordinated effort to suppress his ability to defend himself. From the weaponization of the SEC with its overreach where no securities were sold and only simple loans in a civil loan dispute to the unprecedented judicial handling of his receivership, every step of his legal journey has been met with procedural roadblocks designed to hinder his ability to fight back. This latest ruling fits squarely within that troubling pattern, raising fundamental questions about the impartiality of the judiciary when it comes to politically charged cases.
The denial also begs the question: If Barton’s case was less politically sensitive, would his request have been granted? The court’s refusal to consider the necessity of his legal meetings suggests a deeper motive—one that aligns with the ongoing effort to curtail his resources, mobility, and ability to adequately prepare for his defense.
Legal experts and constitutional scholars have long warned of the dangers of judicial overreach, particularly when courts prioritize procedural technicalities over substantive justice. The ruling against Barton exemplifies these concerns, setting a dangerous precedent for how politically inconvenient defendants are treated in the modern legal landscape.
As Barton continues to fight for his rights, his case stands as a glaring example of the broader issues plaguing the American justice system. The selective application of legal standards, the use of procedural barriers to deny fundamental rights, and the overarching pattern of judicial hostility suggest that his battle is about far more than one man’s freedom—it is about the integrity of the justice system itself.
The American people deserve a judiciary that upholds fairness, impartiality, and due process. The denial of Barton’s motion is a stark reminder that these principles are increasingly at risk, particularly when courts appear more interested in wielding power than in delivering justice.
As the fight continues, the question remains:
How many more innocent Americans have been the subject of targeting and lawfare as well as judicial interference, similar to the Barton family?
How many more roadblocks will be placed before Barton, and at what cost to the very foundation of justice in this country?