I think you should probably reread the article, which was published on August 3, 2021 —I am pretty sure at the time I said that the next filing will likely come from the Government in a form of Opposition. Which hit Defendant Pezzola’s Docket late on Friday August 6, 2021
USA OPPOSITION to Defendant Pezzola Motion re Detention…
I think it is largely indisputable that but for the action of Defendant Pezzola - about a month ago a media conglomerate opted to sue the DOJ. Because until that suit there was (and still is) a significant amount of video evidence that prosecutors have either filed under seal or it’s under the countless protective order(s) that various judges have granted in a few dozen Jan6th Criminal Cases.
Now I’d like you to pay very close attention to this June 22, 2021 video that a Dc local CBS affiliate obtained. There are two segments of the video -it’s the second segment I think you should pay attention to. Because if you blink once you might miss it (see minute marker 1:18 thru 1:29) a person life broadcasting asked Pezzola “did you steal that riot shield” and Defendant Pezzola answers in the affirmative.
In the Government’s Opposition (see DDC-ECF) to the Defendant’s motion -I’d like to explain what I’ve highlighted and why it matters. In the context of the above referenced video (which was entered as evidence in both Donohoe & Pezzola cases) the Government’s position is Defendant Pezzola “stole or purloined” the riot shield.
On June 17, 2021 Defendant Pezzola recanted his denouement of Proud Boys…
Defendant Pezzola’s defense counsel relationships seem rather frenetic. Below is a brief timeline as to Pezzola’s 4th or 5th defense counsel
February 1, 2021 —Oral Motion by Attorney Michael Scibetta to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant DOMINIC PEZZOLA (1), heard and granted.
February 14, 2021 —Oral Motion FPD
April 14, 2021 —MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Jonathan Zucker. by DOMINIC PEZZOLA.
Defendant Pezzola’s “wife” Jan6th was a “social justice movement…
the reason I’m pointing you to this video is, the Defendant via his defense attorney appears to have said that the Defendant essentially recants his prior disavowing any allegiance to the Proud Boys. His wife then goes on to say the most vulgar gaslighting in recent memory…
“he wanted his voice to be heard…him being involved in a social justice movement…it’s another way for him to continue to his prior obligations he made to our Country”
The defendant argues that he “merely picked it up after a USCP Officer dropped it during a physical clash” - you’ll note that the Government’s language of how Pezzola became in possession of the shield; purloined, robbed, and/or stolen.
July 9, 2021, the defendant filed a motion for his release from pretrial detention, arguing that this Court’s decision to detain him defendant was “out of line with relevant legal precedent, and is violative of the United States Constitution.”
In his motion, the defendant raises no information that was both unknown to him at the time of the original detention litigation before this Court and that would have a material bearing on the detention decision. The Court should accordingly decline to reopen the detention hearing and should deny the defendant’s motion.
Footnotes, what do I always say about them? Always and I mean always read them -because this is a strategically smart move by the USAO-DC… you can’t have multiple bites at the apple, something something. More specific as detailed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) -when a Defendant “request” a “rehearing” concerning their detention.
…Although the defendant does not style his motion as such, the government requests that the Court treat his motion as a motion to reopen the detention hearing pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). The defendant has had a full opportunity to litigate his detention status before both a Magistrate Judge and this Court. If he wishes to reopen the detention hearing, he must satisfy the statutory requirements to reopen, which he does not do for the reasons explained below.
In fact under the Bail Reform Act (see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1) ) -this requires the defendant to proffer new…information, material to the “dangerousness” which is a really high threshold. To date Defendant Pezzola has failed to proffer any new information and yet his attorneys continue to file motions which are tantamount to “re-hearing” motions
”…material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community,”
Also because the Government (heavily) cites the Court’s March 2021 Order —Defendant Detained pending trial -you might want to reread the order embedded in the following article. Because I walked you through the Bail Reform Act. The Court’s rationale and the strength of the Government’s evidence. Whispers maybe we should stop asking “who funds the federalist “ and start asking:
Who’s funding the Defense of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys? Who’s fronting the nearly $1M in surety bonds?
And moving on to page 5 of the Government’s Opposition -here the Government reiterates the main five arguments the Defendant (has previously litigated and loss both in terms of arguments lacking in merit and materiality) a Defendant can’t keep filing a motion to “reopen” a bond hearing (in this case the Defendant had two separate hearings) and attempt to re-litigate previous arguments which were roundly rejected by a Magistrate Judge and then later a Federal District Court Judge.
…five main arguments in support of his claim that he should be released from pretrial detention:
he claims that the conditions at the Central Treatment Facility require release,
that the nature and circumstances of the offense do not support detention,
that the defendant’s history and characteristics do not support detention;
that denial of bail violates his rights to Due Process and Equal Protection and;
that the Court should not consider the fact that he is charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)
Wait so Pezzola and/or his Defense Counsel are not vaccinated… absolutely savage footnote
Not to sound repetitive but Defendant Pezzola hasn’t proffer any new information that would address the “safety of the community” should he be released. Moreover you’ll note that the Government speaks directly about Defendant Pezzalo and the materiality of his “new facts” or more precisely no new facts. Furthermore a Defendant can’t keep filing Motions to be Released, they are required to follow FRCrP -as enumerated in the Bail Reform Act.
…defendant similarly cites no authority…
Remember how I said that the Defendant’s argument as it relates to “attorney client privilege” was misguided and that the “narrative” that unless he’s given a laptop then his constitutional rights are being violated —where I said weird the Defendant failed to cite any case law. Well it turns out that in the Government’s Opposition they repeatedly referenced how the Defendant failed to fully explain his logic and his motion to be released…but wait…there’s more, so much more;
The cliff notes of these two lengthy footnotes - the government is essentially calling bs on Defendant Pezzola’s July 6th Motion. Because again his July6th Motion lacked in both case law citation, new information, and did nothing to actually address the “dangerousness” element.
I am old enough to remember someone saying something to the effect of;
🚨VERY IMPORTANT🚨 July 7, 2021 USCA-DC Ruling as to Defendant Hale-Cusanelli is beyond important. Yet for some odd reason when I would casually reference that July7th USCA-DC ruling it’s like to flies over people’s heads and there’s a deer in the headlights moment.
I know that my articles can be painfully long. Frankly I don’t know if I’ll ever attempt to make future articles more condensed. Verbosity is an occupational hazard. That said, I am of the belief that tiny details matter and are equally important as facts. Particularly if you can back up with actual documents versus specious opinions or really gawd awful legal takes. Then again I can’t force you to read what I write.
I now refer you to pages 12 et seq of the Government’s Opposition -they directly quoted from that July 7th USCA-DC ruling…
On pages 11 and 12 the Government’s Opposition, which reiterates the previous superseding indictment - inarguably the Grand Jury found probable cause to believe that Defendant Pezzola didn’t “pick up a riot shield from the ground” —once again the Government provides the Court with photographic evidence that Defendant Pezzola tool/stole/robbed/purloined a USCP Officer’s Riot shield and he did so with “force”
Moving on to page 13 of the Government’s Opposition —note how the Government shifts their focus on last month’s U.S.C.A -D.C. Circuit non-violent Jan6th Defendants as to Defendant Hale-Cusanelli?
“In our view, those who actually assaulted police officers and broke through windows, doors, and barricades, and those who aided, conspired with, planned, or coordinated such actions, are in a different category of dangerousness than those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way”
“that only those persons who participated in violence on January 6 could properly be considered as posing a future danger to the community justifying pretrial detention….“[t]he12point of Munchel was that everyone who entered the Capitol on January 6 did not necessarily pose the same risk of danger and the preventive detention statute should apply to the January 6 defendants the same as it applies to everyone else.”
Individualized Assessment of Dangerousness
…the Circuit has recently clarified that its holding in Munchel does not stand for the proposition “that only those persons who participated in violence on January 6 could properly be considered as posing a future danger to the community justifying pretrial detention.”
The main point is back in March 2021 the Court reviewed the weight of evidence proffered by the Government, the Defendant’s extensive planning, especially the arranged concealed means of communication, the defendant’s actions (specifically smashing the windows out, this facilitated the lawlessness of others. Defendant Pezzola was destruction of the window allowed for other Domestic Terrorist to literally swarm into our Capitol. The Court also concluded that the Government proffered substantial evidence 3 (video) of Pezzola robbing an officer of his shield, breaking the Capitol window with that shield, and taking
“show a willingness to use violence and to act in concert with others to obstruct essential functions of the United States government. And Pezzola’s refusal to obey the lawful orders of law enforcement throughout the day suggest that he would not comply with conditions of release to keep the public safe.”
Nothing the defendant has proffered is material to that finding, as he acknowledges.
Oh come on —are you for reals telling me that a US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, has a typo? No wait…an actual spelling error? Oh. My. God. Me gasping clutching my ultra luster Mikimotos… how dare they. Whispers it’s also super rich given this same crew didn’t even know how many circuits, the regionality —but most amusing is they didn’t know about this particular USCA-FC <insert eye roll and snort laughs> http://cafc.uscourts.gov
For the record this is the same crew that didn’t know about various USCA circuit splits and why those tend to be problematic. Hence this typically requires SCOTUS sort it out. Circuit Splits are incredibly problematic…
I really and I mean really hope a News Org files a FOIA request and/or motion to intervene because Pezzola is on videotape, violently stealing the riot shield. Moreover on page 12 the Government makes the following disclosure:
”…in possession of this video through prior counsel since February 25, 2021…”
My day started with this for reading and my hubby sending an article about the NJ guy that works (worked?) for the same entity as I do that proudly blabbed about his 1/6 actions at work. They called the FBI. LOL
Clutching your Mikimotos! I should find my pearls - I've been missing out it seems. In my mind, this defendant's visage personifies the evilness of January 6. My hope is they put him away for a good, long time.
My day started with this for reading and my hubby sending an article about the NJ guy that works (worked?) for the same entity as I do that proudly blabbed about his 1/6 actions at work. They called the FBI. LOL
Clutching your Mikimotos! I should find my pearls - I've been missing out it seems. In my mind, this defendant's visage personifies the evilness of January 6. My hope is they put him away for a good, long time.