Case Update Dominic PEZZOLA and Matthew “proud boys who?” Greene
I make zero apologies but this is a very long and very detailed article because if you file a sloppy motion, I’ll show you how to properly cite a case versus using a nonspecific citation. Bloop
Background -3rd Defendant Matthew Greene
I think that you should (re)read this May 2021 article. I walked you through the superseding indictment and the 3rd defendant. You’ll need this to understand the various updates to the case, specifically Defendants GREEND & PEZZOLA
I also recommend you (re)read 18 U.S.C 3142(e)(3) -this is largely the basis for Courts to make a determination, specifically Section 3142(a) clearly states the following.
"…upon the appearance before a judicial officer of a person charged with an offense, the judicial officer shall make a determination regarding bail status of the defendant, and shall enter an order designating a defendant's custodial status"
This is an “or” situation versus “inclusive” under one of four categories:
released on personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond (following the provisions of Section 3142(b));
released on a condition or combination of conditions as defined by Section 3142(c);
temporarily detained to permit revocation of conditional release, deportation, or exclusion under Section 3142(d); or
detained pursuant to the provisions of Section 3142(e).
“consciously arming himself.”
During the preliminary hearing (April 2021 NDNY) the transcript is a worthwhile read - Defendant Greene’s Motion the Court articulated its concerns. And I tend to enjoy reading transcripts sans the MSM filter, more on the actual hearing below
Defendant Matthew Greene
As you’ll note in Defendant GREENE’s motion he reiterates that, while the Court agreed that the Defendant didn’t represent a “serious flight risk” conversely the Court focused on the following:
specifically referenced three firearms that were recovered during the execution of a search warrant at the defendant’s home on January 18, 2021. Exhibit 1, Transcript, pg. 82.
The Court also relied on the defendant’s possession of ammunition allegedly purchased after January 6, 2021 to concluded that the defendant was “consciously arming himself.” Id. at 84.
The Court also specifically mentioned certain “chats and communication post January 6th” as part of the basis for a finding of dangerousness
Notwithstanding this is not exactly intellectually a strong argument…meaning regurgitation of Munshel’s Ruling —wait for it because I told you last month how important that USCA-DC July 7, 2021 ruling was. The ripple effectuated by the Court’s ruling… only recently are we starting to see direct causation. I don’t think you should worry about a USCA Circuit Split, because after all Washington D.C retains original jurisdiction. And we are well beyond the initial appearance threshold.
,,,because Defendant Greene completely ignores the recent July 7, 2021 USCA-DC Opinion. Which is embedded (below) in the following article. In sum the USCA-DC Court finally set the Munshel case back on the judicial tracks - this is literally what I published about a month ago:
In layman’s terms in my view the Court got it wrong in the Munshel case but late on July 7th the USCA -DC - the Court squarely “refined” their previous determination and this sets the detention train back on course. Meaning the USCA-DC has now ruled that in certain cases the Government can Move to Detain a defendant even if the Defendant was charged/indicted on non-violent crimes.
No really I walked you through just how important the USCA-DC ruling was…and yes naturally I highlighted the __ out of it. Oh come on you know that deep down inside you truly enjoy my highlights. It’s my jam so don’t judge me…
This is also why I started unapologetically started to sound the alarm in January 2021. And I’ll continue to do so because the reality is the haphazard way the USAO-DC has comported itself. There’s literally minimal to nearly zero uniformity with the USAO-DC requesting Detention.
This is where the Defendants (predictably) uses this for their benefit. I now refer you to Page 4 of Document No 63 —again maybe it seems naive to assume, if you a Trump-Domestic-Terrorist decided to viciously beat law enforcement officers (sorry yelling)
…Your Domestic Terrorist ass should be detained pending trial…
That sound you heard? That was me pounding my head and my fist on my desk — I now refer you to page 8 of Defendant Greene’s Motion. This isn’t an esoteric argument —those who actually understand the judicial system and how things work (not someone who uses “so stipulated” uniformed Blue-QANON-sense grifting charlatan) if someone says “this is bad and other defendants will use XYZ to rationalize” why they, themselves should not be detained 1
Because if you take the time to read Defendant Greene’s June 2021 Motion - you’ll note he actually referenced four separate cases where the USAO-DC did not request detention. What is most galling is, three out of the fours cases Defendant Greene cited, actually involved individuals who punched, stabbed, and/or kicked Federal law enforcement. And yet the USAO-DC did not move for Detention. Again my NOT 2
Proud Boys Who?
This paragraph tucked on page 8 -“proud boys” Who day? Did my puppy do something right? It is good boy or proud boys..
…Prior to January 6, 2021, Mr. Greene’s association with the Proud Boys was very limited. He attended =approximately three events from November 2020 through January 2021. Mr. Greene had the lowest status in the organization and did not occupy any type of leadership role…allowing this affiliation to overshadow the more concrete factors outlined above would amount to detaining Mr. Greene for his association with a group... the defendant has concluded that his personal beliefs and ethics do not align with those of the Proud Boys. Mr. Greene he is anxious to publicly disavow his brief membership in this group.
Aug 2, 2021 Minute Entry -Defendant Greene DENIED
…okay fine, I’ll put you out of our shared misery - late in the evening of August 2, 2021 the Court filing issued a ruling as to Defendant Greene’s Motion.
Minute Entry -which reads in part:
..proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Kelly: VTC StatusConference as to DOMINIC PEZZOLA (1), WILLIAM JOSEPH PEPE (2), and MATTHEW GREENE (3) held on 8/2/2021. ALL Defendants appeared by video.
Oral argument on 63 MOTION to Revoke Detention Order by Defendant GREENE (3), heard and DENIED.
Speedy Trial Excludable (XT) started 8/2/2021 through 9/24/2021, in the interest of justice, as to ALL Defendants.
Bond Hearing as to DOMINIC PEZZOLA (1) set for 9/2/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge Timothy J. Kelly.
Status Conference as to ALL Defendants set for 9/24/2021 at 10:00 AM before Judge Timothy J. Kelly.
Current Bond Status of Defendants:
Defendant # 1— Dominic Pezzola —Remains Committed,
Defendant #2 —William Pepe —Remains on Personal Recognizance,
Defendant #3 —Matthew Greene —Remains Committed;
I’ve written about Defendant Dominic Pezzola, a lot (see here) and for the most part I think I’ve provided timely updates —except for July 2021. No excuses from me for dropping the ball. As you know, I have a full time job, children and a life outside of Twitter or blogging with actual real-world friends.
Plus I don’t have a staff (my gawd the typos alone substantiates that). I’ve never accepted any kind compensation, none whatsoever. And shocker I’m not actually a cyborg. Therefore I’m fallible and sometimes things even slip off my radar. It was easy to use Twitter to push out Court filings but actually taking the time to read the filings, then cross reference with other cases and then putting actual words into a quasi thoughtful article is far more time consuming than sending a few tweets. Nonetheless let’s quickly go over Defendant PEZZOLA’s July 9th filing (you should know that the Court has not issued a ruling and based on yesterday’s late night minute entry, it appears a ruling “might” come in September—during the next status conference)
If my recollection is correct (see previous articles specific to Defendant Pezzola’s 4 previously failed attempts to be released —dating as far back as February 2021 to July 2021) making 👇🏻 his 5th request to be released from custody. Moreover while it’s correct to say the Defendant is seeking to be released, that’s not his only request —in fact there are three separate requests.
Filed July 9, 2021
MOTION to Modify Bail,
MOTION for Placement in High Intensity Supervision Program by Dominic Pezzola,
MOTION to Permit Laptop by DOMINIC PEZZOLA 3
Assuming arguendo the Court denies the first two requests (which are coupled together), then the third request should/would be viewed as a standalone. That is Defendant Pezzola’s request for a laptop to review discovery materials. If the Court grants his request —You can assume that it will come with a lot of restrictions, primarily no access to the internet, no communications with other Proud Boys etc.
Conventional wisdom dictates that if you start your motion off with intellectual dishonesty and overtly try the Apple v Oranges then perhaps your argument is not as strong as you think. For Example: Dom isn’t charged with murder. Factually speaking that’s correct but Dom was charged for his violent actions that attacked the very heart of our Democracy.
His opening arguments completely ignore what the Government filed in February 2021 and the Court’s ruling —that affirmed the Government had met the threshold that no set of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the community
Oh FFS I see that Dom is following suit of his co-defendant Greene citing the Munshel Case but then completely ignoring the July 7th USCA-DC Ruling Which is ridiculously because the USCA-DC published their ruling two days before Pezzola filed his motion. Moreover can Defendant Pezzola actually prove that the Jan6th credibly accused Trump-Domestic-Terrorist are “being treated differently than other inmates” because that’s the allegation being made and a quick cursory revenge of the Defendant’s motion I see zero facts/evidence educed that substantiate the Defendant’s specious allegations.
Here’s a novel idea - your client purloined a USCP Riot Shield, he then used that same stolen shield to bust out the window thereby causing physical damage to the Capitol building, he actively hit numerous law enforcement officers whilst under the inauguration scaffolding and bemoaning his current incarceration isn’t the Court or Government’s fault. It’s the Defendants actions both preceding and proceeding his violent acts of Domestic Terrorism that has landed him in DC Jail.
Now to be clear your issue is with the warden of the DC Jail, while I agree that all defendants are afforded the right to counsel —have you asked the warden to utilize a semi-private conference room, antler room or an office? And while preparing his defense is a constitutional right —Also small golf claps on your superpower that while two seats away you and Dom could hear “every word”
The day that the undersigned visited with Dom, another lawyer was sitting 2 spots down and we were able to hear everything she was telling her client. Every word the client was saying to the lawyer, Dom could hear.
Also I can’t help but wonder who’s bankrolling the firm Metcalf & Metcalf, P.C. —yesterday I walked you through the Daniel CHRISTMANN affidavit -and specifically pointed to you the relevant section concerning CHRISTMANN instructing others to delete videos/post —welp I just fingered out who “Jake” is - I now refer you to page 17, paragraph 32 - Edward Jacob Lang is also represented by the same two attorneys currently represent Pezzola
My question as it relates to who’s bankrolling both Pezzola and Lang’s defense isn’t an out of the blue question —in fact Pezzola’s own defense counsel brings up the “financial….burden” —I now refer you to pages 22- 23, paragraph 49
What’s emerging as a new reframing by the Republican members of Congress and known QANON-MAGA acolytes is the “human rights violation of Jan6th prisoners” when you rely on letters from QANON-Marjorie Taylor Green (see DDC-ECF EXHIBIT L) and Rep Brad Comer —yes then you’ve officially hit the very bottom of the barrel
Oh you think I’m being sardonic that Defendant Pezzola used the June 2021 letter to FBI Director Wray, DC Mayor, acting USCP Chief - I wasn’t —see DDC-ECF link to Exhibit L
And to be clear it is entirely possible that Defendant Pezzola might make convincing arguments that the Conditions at the DC Jail are horrid but I do think that his Defense attorneys completely took Campbell v. McGruder, (JC-DC-001) 4 out of context because they simply cite the whole case versus actual recitals. That’s just sloppy lawyering because you can’t just throw a case out there and not give specific citation (full disclosure footnote 5 is extremely long because shocker —this is my wheelhouse, correctly citing cases). 5
Pardon my language;
did you really fucking say that? No really did you actually say that in your motion?
WHAT (and I can not stress this enough) THE. ACTUAL. FUCK?
The Defendant is now blaming police for pushing the domestic terrorist and that during this physical altercation then clearly USCP Officers “accidentally dropped the riot shield” —that argument is a goddamn atrocious blame shitting, I mean shifting….
…people who were there would then pick material up off the floor, such as shields that the officers dropped on the floor. That behavior is not tantamount to or the equivalent to Dom taking the shield “by force and violence and by intimidation”. The record here is devoid a showing supporting that Dom used any force or intimidation to obtain the shield that was dropped on the floor.
And YES -I’m aware that you are probably sick of me saying that the USAO-DC better get their act together because the haphazardly way they have approached Detention - well too bad because I’ll keep screaming about this until I don’t have a voice left. Why? Well I now refer you to page 36 - as you’ll note Defendant Pezzola —I believe this is the 8th or 9th such case his defense counsel has proffered as the basis for his release 👇🏻
Defendant Michael Foy is charged with this same charge, and he was just released on bond despite being alleged to strike at law enforcement at least 10 times with a hockey stick before “rallying” others to climb through broken windows into the U.S. Capitol.
Dom, just like Michael Foy, is a U.S. Marine, with no disciplinary history, who is sitting in isolation in a D.C. Jail.. He has two young daughters and a wife at home, who all want Dom back at home even if it’s during the pretrial stages of his case. His co-defendant was granted bond without a problem, and the only addition charges Dom has from his Co-Defendant are that he picked up an officer’s shield off the floor, and that he “adversely affected the conduct and performance of a federally protected function”.
I am calling BS because the notion that Defendant Pezzola isn’t a danger to the Community nor is he a flight risk, strains credulity (see Feb 2021 article) because the following is a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts.
…the Duke-Robinson-Mattis-Munchel-Foy, line of cases, clearly establish the continued enforceability of the Bail Reform Act’s presumption against pretrial detention… circumstances where in can be reasonably inferred that a person’s actions arise from an ardent desire to openly criticize the actions of government. The Court’s granting of the government’s motion for against pretrial release, when viewed in light of the Duke-Robinson-Mattis-Munchel-Foy, is grossly unjust because the objective facts…
…regarding Dom’s personal history, and lack of criminal record have counted for nothing. While a meritless concoction of unfounded allegations was weighed against him despite the fact that he was never arrested or given the opportunity to confront his alleged accuser in court.
And then Defendant Pezzola ticks through a list of 19+ other defendants where the USAO-DC didn’t even bother to request detention. Do you see why I’ll keep raging about the lack of threshold or orderly process employed by the USAO-DC when requesting Detention? The water line should be -if you are a domestic terrorist and you beat the crap out of law enforcement then your Trump-QANON-MAGA-Domestic-Terrorist loving ass should remain behind bars until your trial or you hammer out a plea agreement…,
Here I uploaded;
Defendant Pezzola’s July 9th Filing -Exhibit L Rep MTG letter
Campbell v. McGruder various filings via Scribd
In short we will all have to wait and see what the Court Rules on Defendant Pezzola’s July 9th Motion —see last night’s minute entry
And say what you want but you can not say that I’m not thorough or that I withhold public documents…
-hangry Filey who’s over being nice…
Look I’m not even trying to sugar coat this. In January 2021 when I was on Twitter I repeatedly tweeted that the USAO-DC haphazard detention threshold was sloppy and all over the place. That’s not me saying “we good —keep doing you” no this is me trying to explain the cascading and adverse impact to other cases.
I gave you a very small sampling on August 2, 2021 —the analogy is simple, it’s a tractor-trailer caravan crashing into the American Legion Bridge on both sides of the beltway. True story one of the offices I work out of, on a clear day you can see the ALB and I also can see when the inner and outer loop are locked in gridlock. so just ICYMI
See Department of Justice Programs -last accessed August 2, 2021 https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/149938NCJRS.pdf
The case Defendant Pezzola referenced Campbell v. McGruder summary: on July 21, 1971, pre-trial detainees in the DC Jail filed a class action lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Defendants mayor of the District of Columbia and jail officials.
“The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief for a long list of violations of the inmates' Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights. These included overcrowding, inadequate food, denial of access to counsel, inadequate medical services, lack of contact with community, and lack of programs to allow inmates to maintain employment prior to trial. Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys of the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia…”
The Original Order/Stipulation in 1975 and 1976, the court issues several orders enjoining conditions of confinement in the jail -below is a brief recitation of the case
March 21, 1975 —Judge Bryant “ordered the jail to reduce overcrowding and implement procedures concerning the release of inmates prior to trial..” see Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 100 (D.D.C. 1975).
Judge Bryant entered another order addressing overcrowding on May 24, 1976. Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 111 (D.D.C. 1976).
March 30, 1978, USCA-DC the affirmed the District Court’s Orders: regarding the overcrowding and remanded the other orders for clarification. See Campbell v. McGruder, 188 U.S. App. D.C. 258 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
On remand, the district court went on to “vacated the part of the previous orders that prohibited the practice of double celling and provided additional security and limits on when this practice occurred” —see Campbell v. McGruder, 554 F. Supp. 562 (D.D.C. 1982).
July 13, 1985, the district court prohibited the jail from “accepting any inmates until the population of the facility was reduced”
August 22, 1985, the parties agreed to a Stipulation to Reduce the Population of the DC Jail providing detailed guidelines for population reduction.
March 11, 1987, the court found the District of Columbia in contempt for failure to follow the order and stipulation.
March 4, 1993, plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt. Then the district court ordered the defendants to “immediately employ a psychologist and correctional officers trained in mental health care and develop chronic disease clinics within the jail” thereafter the defendants failed to comply with numerous portions of the previous order. To wit the district court appointed a Special Officer. Who later provided the Court with a detailed report of their investigation, findings and recommendations
July 7, 2003, Judge Bryant granted a motion to dismiss the cases, terminating all injunctive relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (per curium) affirmed this decision on March 9, 2004, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a current constitutional violation as required by the PLRA. Campbell v. McGruder, 86 Fed. Appx. 426 (D.C. Cir. 2004).