Connie and Kelly Meggs case update

Second Notice of Discovery to all Defendant

Background regarding Defendants Mr & Mrs Meggs

…before we drill down on the April 13, 2021 Filing, I genuinely think you would benefit from rereading this April 6, 2021 USA v Caldwell “yes your honor some of the Defendants have approached about plea offers” -updated article - incidentally I’m kind of surprised the mainstream media didn’t pick up on the prosecutors disclosing “yes your honor some defendants are in active negotiations concerning potential plea of deals”….;one of my favorite phase in litigation is sitting back and watching the defendant turn on each other. I actually pulled the curtain back to show you what I tend to do for my actual J-O-B. My employer values my ability of listening in on a hearing and immediately transcribing it with a decent amount of accuracy and heightened focus on the good/important parts

Also a Point of Personal Privilege;

If you want to nick pick at my proclivity of typos and grammar “issues” -of course that is entirely up to you. I’m not a paid reporter. I’ve never monetized any of my research (tweets or blog post) nor do I have an editor. Conversely if that’s your choice criticism then it might be difficult to understand, sadly you are doing yourself a disservice. Given the factual substance that I continue to provide you at zero cost.

Ultimately it’s your propagative of what you deem to be important or not. Also do you know why […] and (sic) are so prolific in various District Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Opinions, Memorandum, Briefs etc ? It means when a document was filed, it likely contained either misspellings or grammatical errors but more often than naught it contained both.

Generally speaking, if you an iota of the legal proceedings, then you’d know typos and grammatical errors happen all the time. (Line 26 - you have no idea what that inside joke is but I’ll say it again line 26 <—chef’s kiss) Moreover if you want to be intellectually honest then you would know even our Constitution, Declaration of Independence along with a vast majority of our Country’s documents authored by our Founding Fathers.

For Example:

• Article 1, Section 10 “No State shall … lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s Inspection Laws,” whereas the correct word should have been “its” versus “it’s” <—showing procession

• Alexander Hamilton actually misspelled Pennsylvania - Hamilton assisted the signatories by transcribing their respective states and inadvertently spelled Pennsylvania as “Pensylvania”

• using British spelling, controul v control, labour v labor, neighbour v neighbor, colour v color, chuse v choose, defence v defense

Should you be inclined you can read Henry Bain’s Errors in the Constitution—Typographical and Congressional- Fall 2012, Vol. 44, No. 2 via our National Archives link, found here. Even in my snarky missives I attempt to impart some kind of educational background and then provide you with original documents. In sum nearly all of the aforementioned documents are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. “The more you know” <—snort

Meggs Motion for Reconsideration

Apr 13, 2021 Response to motion by USA, Document No 153 - Doc 153 via ECF - or via my public drive. As explained last week (found here) I really do try to approach reporting as agnostically as possible. I do this because I’m mindful of how tribal we have become and how easy it is for all of us to retreat to our perspective corners.

The beauty of law is it is (or at least should be) blind and it should always be applied equally. And those who choose to report on it should refrain from injecting political biases (yet I continually struggle with this) While we need to be mindful that FBI Agents are not infallible. They can and sometimes do make mistakes.

Notwithstanding, as a whole the thousand of nameless Agents are beholden to their Agency’s motto “Fidelity. Bravery. Integrity” —when Defendant Meggs filed his motion, at the time I found it unusual and suspect that the Defendant “happened upon” the various items of clothing shortly after his wife was released. As it turns out the Prosecutors had a few thoughts on Meggs’ newly proffer “evidence”

As explained by the Government, on February 17, 2021 approximately nineteen (19) law enforcement officers (LEOs), mainly FBI Agents but also included a few LEOs from the local Sheriff’s office executed a judicially authorized search warrant on the Meggs’ Florida home. Agents spent over three hours searching the premises, they were specifically looking for the clothing

And then the Government went there and by there I mean, the following argument, which reads in part:

“The government submits that it is unlikely that the large volume of materials that the FBI collected from Defendant Meggs’s counsel – including three helmets and three vests – were present on Defendant Meggs’s property on February 17 and simply overlooked by the FBI. It is more likely that the items were secreted elsewhere and then retrieved by co-defendant Connie Meggs after her release (or by other individuals)” (emphasis added)

At which point the Government correctly points to the Court’s statement(s) that the Court essentially made a determination about the threat Mr Meggs poses to not just his Community but more broadly the American people. The reason this is important is it’s a nuance. The Government skillfully highlighted the following;

…that even if “the newly proffered” three helmets and three vests that Meggs’ defense counsel provided to the Government on April 9, 2021 — it appears Defendant Meggs proffered this “evidence” as a means to question the integrity and thoroughness of the FBI agents that executed the search warrant. And tclearly the timing of the “newly discovered” is highly suspect.

Which is important because as the Government states the Court only weighed that as one of many factors when making the ruling Mr Meggs¹ ² ³be detained pending trial. To be fair the Government is speculating here but their speculation nonetheless is entirely reasonable.

the Court found that this fact “lessens” the reliability of Defendant Meggs complying with release conditions, not that all reliability is removed.

Mr/Mrs Meggs’ MOTION for BILL of PARTICULARS

Now if you read footnotes 1 thru 3 you will understand why Mr & Mrs Meggs’ recently filed Motion Bill of Particulars (via ECF or via my public drive) As you’ll note their primary attack is Count One:

Numbers 7 and 8 are kind of curious - the Defendants are asking for Count Three, an “identification of each act committed”…by KELLY and CONNIE MEGGS that “caused damage to the Capitol and the monetary amount of that damage” my educated guess is the Meggs are likely going to argue the “we aren’t liable for the monetary damages if the Government can’t prove our actions caused the damage”

But again to date I do not think the Court had ruled that Mr & Mrs Meggs can share the same defense attorney. And until such time the Court does I would expect their recent motion will be held in abeyance. So I would be on the lookout for the Government to file a motion concerning “joint defense counsel” and a subsequent hearing -as well as the court ordering a “conflict counsel” - as to my speculation of Mr & Mrs Meggs’ defense strategy, I now refer you to page 3, second and third paragraphs:

Second Notice of Discovery

by USA as to THOMAS CALDWELL, DONOVAN CROWL, JESSICA WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, GRAYDON YOUNG, LAURA STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, KENNETH HARRELSON, ROBERTO A. MINUTA, JOSHUA A. JAMES - letter from Government via ECF and Exhibit Discovery Letter 2 via ECF (or you can pull down the letter from my public drive or from the public share folder, found here ) - which disclosed;

• production contains roughly 1,600 files consisting mostly of subpoena returns.

• Some of the U.S. Capitol surveillance video footage obtained to date;

• Damage estimates from the U.S. Capitol;

• Defendants’ complete, not-yet-scoped cell phone search warrant returns; and

• Defendants’ financial records.

Also as a reminder I update/upload the various court filings to a public folder entitled Caldwell Watkins et al -Oath Keepers because I understand how expensive PACER is. Yet I’m mindful that my readers should have as much access to the Original/Root Court Documents, as possible.

And lastly - the fundraising lallapalooza resulted in a largesse for the Megg’s family. Raising in-excess of $187,000.00 (when you add the March 25, 2021 Give-Send-Go Archive, April 14, 2021 Give-Send-Go Archive and February 28, 2021 Zach Meggs also created a GoFundMe campaign, (archived)

1. This might not matter to most- last week as I was transcribing thed hearing - I made a specific reference to Mr & Mrs Meggs - joint representation, to date it is unclear if the Court has ruled and if the Court Ordered a “Conflict Counsel” and/or a Colloquy hearing which is absolutely necessary.

2. a colloquy hearing: “discussion during a hearing between the judge and the defendant usually to ascertain the defendant's understanding of his or her rights and of the court proceedings “ the reason this is necessary

3. I’d also argue a Curcio hearing might be required because if you have a wife & husband as defendants and the Court grants their request to be represented by a single attorney—it is paramount the Court and Government and the Defendants know their rights but also know the potential conflicts. Again there’s a reason I’ve fixated on this matter because both defendants are required to sign a waiver and the Court should hold either a colloquy and/or Curcio hearing. Because that’s what the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure dictate