Defendant Jeremy Groseclose -that’s what you’re going with? Absolute deny, defy and lie. Wash Rinse and Repeat.
Can we talk about the defendants being indigent? That we are paying for the Federal Public Defender(s)? Statistically speaking >42% of all currently currently charged insurrection Defendants are broke
Defendant Jeremy Groseclose
I don’t even know where to actually begin with this affidavit - so let’s first take a hard look at Defendant Groseclose’s wide open Facebook account. While it is true that he subsequently deleted a bunch of his post (from January 5th thru 8th) - oddly he still has several eyebrow raising January 9th Facebook Post.
For example - this highly edited video (archived here) or his January 9th Facebook post making fun of the FBI, also archived here. The point is, of course I could dril down on each of his various Facebook posts but I can also quickly summarize the preliminary research thusly;
From January 5 thru 8 there is a massive gap in his timeline, this suggest that either he deleted his post (some of which is confirmed in the affidavit) and/or law enforcement asked Facebook to hide and preserve his account.
Post January 9th his account changed meaning he pivoteded to “identifying” insurrectionist while simultaneously blaming antifa, is a very interesting juxtaposition. (Archived here) And I’m not entirely sure what his motive was/is - perhaps to inoculate himself as being present during the deadly insurrection? But again that’s pure conjecture on my end.
This particular January 11th post is the one that I found pretty disturbing - also archived here. Now that you have a small window of what Defendant Groseclose’s public Facebook postings were - this will help better contextualize the Affidavit
Worse? On February 5, 2021 at 7:41PM posted this on his timeline but if you click on the comments
Main Facebook Account https://www.facebook.com/jeremy.groseclose
But tucked in the reply comments of his January 9, 2021 Facebook post Groseclose posted the following (presumably while his wife was either in active labor or giving birth) - because Facebook locked his account for 30 days, he created a new Facebook account; https://www.facebook.com/jeremy.groseclose.3
18 U.S.C §231(a)(3) civil disorder, 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2) obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding, or attempt to do so. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1752(a)(1) and (2) Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building and 40 U.S.C 5104(e)(2) - restrict grounds. See footnotes for the GPO links to each statutes and applicable punishable subsection
According to the affidavit (ECF), the FBI received two separate tips on or about January 7, 2021 - both “tipsters” explained what the defendant had posted and both informed the FBI that the defendant subsequently deleted his posts. This suggest in part “consciousness of guilt” behavior. Especially in the context of “Tipster # 1” who told the FBI: “pics pertaining to the woman who was shot, and other various bragging protesting activity”
Tipster # 2 (in a separate tip from # 1) informed the FBI that GROSECLOSE “had several social media posts about being at the capital and taking part in the riot. He posted a picture of blood and said he was present when the female was shot but took it down.”
On February 6, 2021 the FBI Agent intervened “Tipster #1” and learned that person knew the Groseclose family and the Defendant “since childhood” and they “followed” his social media account. The Agent then sent Tipster # 1 an email which contained a picture of the Defendant. After receiving the email the Tipster sent the Agent the following text message “looks like him [GROSECLOSE] to me.”which appears to have positively identified the Defendant
Generally speaking, besides seeing your name in an Affidavit as a Defendant- this is something you do not ever want to see in an affidavit; “I have viewed at least 18 video clips from inside the Capitol Building in which GROSECLOSE is depicted…”
Seriously the Capitol Surveillance footage shows the Defendant using his cell phone to take a picture of a pool of blood. He posted that picture to his Facebook timeline, and subsequently deleted aforementioned picture - “this is the picture the tipsters described as GROSECLOSE’s social media post of a picture of blood”
To give you a quantitative idea of just how much the eighteen previously mentioned surveillance footage could be - the Affiant disclosed that during the course of the investigation Defendant Groseclose remained inside the Capitol to over two hours.
I’ve previously explained the importance of law enforcement utilizing all tools at their disposal. Again if you followed me on Twitter then you know I tweeted a lot about the USA v Chatrie “case of first impression” -No really I tweeted a lot about that case (here, here . here) While most didn’t even know why they should have paid attention to that case. At the time I am pretty sure I was the only one on Twitter that provided detailed and timely updates - especially as it pertained to Google, Location Services in the context of the Geofencing Warrant.
To be clear I am still very much opposed to GeoFencing and “administrative subpoenas” for big Tech giants. Case in point, I recently wrote about the six (at the time of publication it was five defendants) and qualified my position of being “okay” with a GeoFencing warrant - I would be for extremely limited purposes. For Example; Federal Law Enforcement utilizing GeoFencing to expedite their investigations and start charging the criminals who ransacked our Capitol, forthwith.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa an exclusion list, you say?
to tell me is that a certain PITA Twitter Account who actually said during the insurrection “you intractable ignoramuses your cell phones will meet geofencing and then you are so pucked” because you can not argue with “location services” or your unique EMEI Number ping’ing off cellular towers in DC, especially those near the Capital. Here. We. Are. (yet again)
The Government did not redact Defendant Grossclose’s Personally Identifiable Information; his home address, email and his cellphone number. Conversely they did redact his date of birth. therefore the redactions you see are mine1-my track record shows, I’m not down with doxing, ever. Given doxing is criminal behavior. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A -Stalking but specifically 18 U.S.C. §2261A(2)2
I also have a SOP of redacting the FBI Agent’s name - because we all know that some of Trump’s supporters will then turn their ire to the agents investigating these cases.
States also have varying statutes concerning online doxing and/or cyberstalking and harassment’s;
For Example according to the North Carolina § 14-277.3A Stalking or § 14-196.3. Cyberstalking., ‘NC-DIT doxing is classified as; A revenge tactic, doxing and involves the malicious targeting, compiling and public release of personally identifiable information (PII) to perpetrate harassment, revenge, identity theft or potential violence against a target”
Missouri 573.110 “Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images
Michigan 750.411h Stalking; definitions; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; probation; conditions; evidence of continued conduct as rebuttable presumption; additional penalties.