Joseph Biggs long awaited case update

NOTICE OF HEARING as to ETHAN NORDEAN (1) and JOSEPH RANDALL BIGGS (2). The VTC Motion Hearing set for 4/1/2021 is RESCHEDULED for 4/6/2021 at 11:30 AM before Judge Timothy J. Kelly

I know that I’m tad ,behind and I’m genuinely sorry for the delay and appreciate my readers patience. So let’s go ahead and walk you through the recent Court filings as it relates to Defendant Joseph Biggs. If you recall on March 27, 2021 I noticed the invocation of “Terrorism” specifically prosecutors finally laid down the “domestic terrorism” card in their recent filing, as it relates to Defendant Rehl - found here. And yes I understand that most don’t actually read the Court filings but if I tell you that “this is important” I’m not trying to oversell the importance of it.

To properly set your expectations, this will be secular to Defendant Joseph Biggs’ case. Yes I know it’s kind of confusing when there are multiple defendants. One way to help you understand, there’s a main case, think of that as the parent and that the co-defendants cases are a progeny of the “parent case”.

This is important because at a certain point the co-defendants mutual interest will start to uncouple themselves. Particularly if (hypothetically speaking) there’s a defendant that decides to cooperate. Hence the divergence of interest are no longer coupled or aligned. To be clear, at the moment I’m not saying that any of the defendants have decided to cooperate.

March 20, 2021 USA Motion to Revoke;

Typically once a superseding indictment is handed down, that almost always means the Government has proffered additional evidence. For now, put a pin in that because when we go over Biggs’ response it will be important.

MOTION to Revoke Pretrial Release by USA as to JOSEPH RANDALL BIGGS - Document 31 via ECF

As the Government states in their motion - the superseding indictment had at least eight previously unknown (to the general public) and this is important. The Government is establishing a predicate that Biggs’ was in a leadership role, coordinated, helped fundraise and ultimately lead a large group of Proud Boys to the Capitol before Trump’s speech ended - as previously noted in this video

Encrypted Telegram messages among members of the Proud Boys related to the events of January 6 make clear that Defendant held a leadership position in the planning for January 6.

See the use of quotations and pretty targeted time/date stamp? In my line of work this is what’s known as paper. Meaning the Government has the receipts.

Now let’s look at the following Telegram messages the Government proffered - for those who don’t understand the legalese here - allow me to explain, the 3rd bullet-point proffered by the Government is unique for the following reasons;

1) unlike the other Telegram messages which generally had a one to three minute window, here the Government is very exact, January 5, at 9:34PM

also detailed in this video too;

2) Defendant “told co-conspirator Donohoe…2a) “told” implies this was a face to face conversation, 2b) “a message stating” that means Biggs directed Donohoe sent an encrypted message to the (Signal) —in short another datapoint that Biggs took a leadership role

January 5, at 9:34PM Defendant told co-conspirator Charles Donohoe to communicate to Proud Boys members a message stating that the group in Washington, D.C. would meet at the Washington Monument at 10am on January 6.

On page 3 of the Government’s motion -not to belabor the point the Proud Boys “congregated” at the Monument, then walked to the Capitol. I’ve found that as time has passed and more facts become available —previous observations that the attack occurred closer to 1PM - as further detailed in last week’s civil lawsuit —this is the Government stating that Biggs clearly played a leadership role

The Government —rightly so then emphasized one example of how Defendant Biggs provided direction to other Proud Boys members. This might be viewed as a tiny detail but in my line of work tiny details always tend to be important.

As a leader of the Proud Boys members who stormed the Capitol on January 6, the Defendant presents a danger not only based on his own potential violence, but violence by others who undoubtedly still support him. In light of the new charges and additional evidence of the Defendant’s dangerousness, he should be held pending trial.

The point the Government makes - over and over —is the superseding indictment not only charges the four defendants with more serious crimes but the Government (albeit limitedly) provided new evidence that unequivocally supports detention.

In sum total the Government argues Biggs is a danger, he wielded a lot of influence and at times was the one giving the directions versus receiving directions, that is a very important distinction and it could/should sway the court to grant the Government’s request.

Defendant Biggs Reply to USA

In Defendant Biggs’ response to the Government, it is clear they wholly refused to address the serious and substantial charges in the superseding indictment (see document no 42 via ECF or via my public drive (exhibit #1 email/letter from Biggs to Pretrial Services via ECF or via my public drive) —notwithstanding in the spirit of accuracy, Biggs does casually mention the superseding indictment but in this context

The superseding indictment, bootstrapping new conspiracy and property damage charges against Biggs which gave rise to the Motion, had been unsealed the day before.

And while it maybe factually correct that Biggs was “informing” the FBI as it relates to Antifa and Biggs may have given the Government information that helped. There’s nothing in the current record that this is a mitigating factor to allow him to continue home confinement.

In sum Biggs’ opposition largely focuses on his purported contacts with numerous FBI agents and the “information about Antifa and their network” but he fails to address the valid concerns the Government stated.

Government March 31, 2021 Reply to Biggs

On the balance the Government’s response to Defendant Biggs’ Opposition is relatively short and direct, see via ECF or via my public drive. Primarily the Government focused on two points:

1. Biggs hold/held a leadership role among Proud Boys members. The Proud Boys conspired to and ultimately stormed the Capitol. Because Defendant Biggs holds immense influence on Proud Boys members that does in fact present “a danger not only based on his own acts of defiance and violence, but through the actions of those who still undoubtedly support him. The compelling new evidence of the conspiracy with others is discussed at length in the Government’s Reply to co-Defendant Nordean’s Opposition at Part A..”

   

2. Secondly and in my opinion most importantly —again as previously noted, I explained that the fact several members of the Proud Boys didn’t just enter the Capitol once but many “re-entered” the Capitol. That little fact is central to the second argument: “Defendant’s obstructive conduct has developed significantly… took direct action to interfere with law enforcement by removing metal barricades. The Defendant also entered the Capitol not once, but twice, and traveled to the Senate chamber where Vice President Mike Pence had been presiding”

The Government then highlighted the various comments that Defendant Biggs posted on various social media accounts (fair warning these are not my words, this is what the Government included in their March 31st response:

“…Every law makers [sic] who breaks their own stupid Fucking laws should be dragged out of office and hung. The government should fear the people. Not the other way around. You work for us. You don’t have ruling power over me. We only allow you to have that privilege. FAFO.”¹

One of the main undercurrents contained throughout the Government’s filings is Defendant Biggs is not only unrepentant but he appears to be joyful in the “success of the Capitol riot” and in his brief he mislead the Court by omission of a substantial key fact: On January 8, 2021 Defendant Biggs lied to the FBI

So now we wait for the Court’s ruling as to Defendants Joseph Biggs and Ethan Nordean. Both of whom were granted pretrial release. As to the Superseding Indictment the Government moved for revocation of release for Defendants Rehl, Nordean, Donohoe and Biggs. Today’s hearing focuses on Defendants Biggs and Nordean.

As warranted updates will be provided but for now you should be caught up. -Filey

• March 27, 2021 I walked you through Defendant Zach Rehl’s case where the government filed to revoke his

• March 26, 2021 Charles Donohoe criminal case update where the Government filed for revocation of his release, found here

• March 20, 2021 Defendant Ethan Nordean and how important the superseding indictment was, and the Government’s Motion to revoke Nordean’s release, found here.

• And lastly on March 18, 2021 I gave you a decent dissection of what was in the Superseding Indictment, found here.

Bonus Circa 2016 Biggs and local police

I would follow this thread for more timely updates because I kind of have to get back to my actual J-O-B and I don’t have the bandwidth to report in real-time - plus Zoe is a phenomenal court reporter

Zoe Tillman @ZoeTillman

On rebuttal, AUSA argues that as far as future threat of organizing, it's true Congress won't be meeting again soon to certify election results, but there are other reasons Congress could be in joint session (like a state of the union) and there are statehouses to consider too

1. Filed by USA - Motion to Unseal Superseding indictment, filed March 17, 2021 ECF

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04508399325 or via my public drive