Christopher Jon Bjerknes
I can easily demonstrate the absurdity and illegality of the charges against Brendon O'Connell with a simple analogy.
Assume that a person X is charged with plotting to commit "battery" against another person Y, because X was recorded saying to a third person Z,
"Let's give Y a battery for the flashlight he took from me."
Assume that the government then charged X with conspiring to beat Y, in retaliation for the fact that Y took X's flashlight, and the prosecution then asked the court to determine that the definition of "battery" is the statutory definition,
"To beat violently and with intent to cause pain and harm."
Imagine then that the prosecuting officials rejected the fact that "battery" can also mean,
"An electrical device to store charge."
And that the government charged X even though the plain meaning of X's statement depends upon the definition that "battery" mean "an electrical device to store charge" and X always maintained that is what he meant by the word "battery".
Can you imagine what would happen to X if the court ruled that "battery" cannot be a term used to describe an electrical device for storing charge, and barred X from employing that definition at trial, limiting all parties and the jury to defining "battery" as if exclusively, "to beat violently and with intent to cause pain and harm"? Such would be plain error, and a gross abuse of X's due process rights to raise a legitimate defense and argue his case.