Oath Keepers —> PERSON ONE is Stewart Rhodes. Period. Full Stop

I believe this week’s recently unsealed complaints, we are now at the twelve oath keeper member either arrested or indicted. Which means investigators are closing in - but who is Stewart Rhodes?

Mar 12, 2021

Stewart Rhodes…hire an Army of Attorneys don’t “pro se” this

A cursory review of the newly unsealed complaints, affidavit/statement of facts and subsequent indictments - all “roads” lead back to Stewart Rhodes (see what I did there) —On March 10, 2021 I casually mentioned “person one” in the Government’s Opposition to Caldwell’s reconsideration

To prove my point - it can largely be found in the Memorandum in Opposition by USA (ECF) as to THOMAS EDWARD CALDWELL re 53 MOTION for Reconsideration of Detention - specifically pages 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14 - so let me break it down for you in painful and excruciating detail because I like doing a secondary sweep of filings

Pages 4 & 5 subsection “a” The Evidence of Conspiracy

Yes even the “title” of a subsection actually tells you in black and white - specifically starting on page 4…which reads in part:

the government has provided the Court with a message Defendant Caldwell sent on November 26, stating, “Tom Caldwell1 here in Virginia. Yes I did give a call the other day primarily to tell you it was a memorable experience with you and the other Oath Keepers in d.c. Another Maga march is scheduled for Saturday 12 December. Not sure what if anything [Person One] has in mind but I will be there… ((ECF No. 18 at 7.2)

Page 8 - Person One is Stewart Rhodes

One fair point I should say us yes pages 4, 5, and 8 are Caldwell saying he had direct communications with Rhodes - but in this section the Government didn’t state (on Pages 4, 5 or 8) that Caldwell was in direct communication with Stewart Rhodes. Also I would like to point out “person two” is repeatedly referenced in Doc 18 and the current Government Opposition to Caldwell’s Motion for Reconsideration of Bond;

Defendant Caldwell told co-defendant Crowl: “This is a good location and would allow us to hunt at night if we wanted to. I don’t know if [Person One] has even gotten out his call to arms but its a little friggin late. This is one we are doing on our own. We will link up with the north carolina crew.”

Page 10 - Person One

Until page 10 the Government didn’t disclose Person One as having direct communication(s) with Caldwell et al. Until they did. Which is why page 10 should be reviewed closely both in terms of the encrypted communication app “Signal” -wait they didn’t use WhatsApp - isn’t that the preferred conduit for “deep stupid” criminals? Apologies I digress, for the umpteenth time. Below are the relevant proffers by the Government.

Some of you may not fully understand why I’m hyper focused on pages 10 thru 14. In my opinion this is the Government establishing a predicate as to Caldwell et al (potential) state of mind. Meaning this was well planned. Well thought out to include potential quick response action teams. And lastly by Person One’s own words he overtly and covertly telegraphed the intent of using violence —with enough specificity that the defense will have an extraordinarily difficult time to rebut the predicate the Government is establishing.

“…Signal chat called “DC OP: Jan 6 21”—shows that individuals, including those alleged to have conspired with the defendant, were actively planning to use force and violence. The participants in this chat include: Person One, Kelly Meggs, Jessica Watkins, and regional Oath Keeper leaders from multiple states across the country….Person One warns the group, “DO NOT bring in anything that can get you arrested. Leave that outside DC… We will have several well equipped QRFs outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios.”

Person One also says, “Highly recommend a C or D cell flashlight if you have one. Collapsible Batons are a grey area in the law. I bring one. But I’m willing to take that risk because I love em. Good hard gloves, eye pro, helmet. In a pinch you can grab Mechanix gloves and a batters helmet from Walmart. Bring something to put on your noggin. Antifa likes brikes.”

Page 11 confirmation Rhodes directly communicated with Caldwell & others

This is the “confirmation” where prosecutors disclosed (I believe for the first time) Stewart Rhodes sent multiple messages via the Single Chat. For example see the last paragraph on page 11

“…approximately 1:38 p.m., Person One wrote, “All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They’ve had enough.”

Page 12 - not only communicated, instructed co-conspirators;

Just before 2:15PM (DC local time) an Oath Keeper who was overseeing and coordinating the “security” —posted a “message” which reads in part: We need to regroup any members who are not on mission.” —at which point the Government disclosed the following:

Person One then reposted that message and instructed the group: “Come to South Side of Capitol on steps” -Rhodes sent a photograph depicting the southeast side of the Capitol. At 2:41PM, Person One then posted yet another photograph showing the southeast side of the Capitol…,“South side of US Capitol. Patriots pounding on doors[.]” At approximately 2:40 p.m., the same ,,individuals in the “stack,” violently forced their way into the Capitol.

Defendant Caldwell’s response to Opposition

Generally speaking an opening salvo of a Defendant’s Response3 to the Government’s Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Bond Reconsideration4 - The use quotations (not air quotations) - implies that you are quoting a direct quote “…” the use of “Caldwell practically”—as the preface to Caldwell’s purported quote is fascinating, largely because of the passive voice.

Seriously either stick to Latin or French - pick one or the other but commingling both in a reply brief is sloppy lawyering and abysmal writing. Also Caldwell’s new defense attorney approach of bombastic rhetoric and largely conclusory misstatements. What most might overlook is this actually tips Caldwell’s hand and reveals how they plan to defend what most might view as the indefensible. Caldwell’s reply brief is akin to the jurisprudence of “screaming goats”

Even though Caldwell tried his best to dismantle the Government’s Opposition - it is notable that the tone and tenor of Caldwell’s latest reply brief, at every chance he dismisses the seriousness and severity of Jan 6th. Expecting the Court to believe his specious defense that he’s just a crippled old man, who was giving a post insurrection play by play. And nothing the co-conspirators did was premeditated. For Example:

The entirety of Caldwell’s reply is drowning in dubious conclusory missives while simultaneously trying to downplay his role and thrusting all “responsibility” on to his co-defendants/co-conspirators. All of which strains credulity but in terms of “sum and substance” -Notwithstanding this approach, telling fails to sufficiently address the materiality of the known facts. And as predicted Caldwell’s pivot to “this was spontaneous” and not a carefully throughout plan (ergo premeditation) isn’t exactly persuasive. For example:

“The Government’s claim that “being prepared for violence” is the equivalent of a coordinated attack to forcibly enter the Capitol to stop certification is ludicrous. Actually, the recommendations from the “national leader” of the Oath Keepers seems fairly straight forward: Do everything to protect your physical safety with defensive equipment but obey Washington, D.C.’s strict weapons laws”

Remarkably Caldwell’s position is the “Signal Chats” are :exculpatory to the Defendant. That in of itself is a dubious counter argument. And certainly when all else fails just starting steaming A-N-T-I-F-A because that’s all the defendants can do. Conversely the predicable pivot to “off-colored jokes” and the classic Trump inspired counter argument of “locker room” talk - at this very moment the only way I can explain the Defendant’s reply is A-B-S-U-R-D with an extra helping of caustic bombastic missives. No serious attorney would go to the mat for their client in this fashion. It is embarrassing especially the argument that the oxy made me do it - “I was doped up on painkillers”

As to reaffirm my previous observations of Caldwell’s response, I draw your attention to Page 11 - to wit I submit “e Res ipsa loquitur”…

But wait - there’s more - like much more, as in eighteen pages of Exhibit Defendant Character References

And lastly the Government just filed Extension of Time5 -in which they ask for a sixty (60) day continuance. The Government disclosed; over 300 individuals have been charged, over 900 search warrants executed, no less than 14 law enforcement agencies, over 15,000 hours of BWC and security surveillance footage and approximately 1,600 electronic devices

For now I think you’re caught up…6 all the recent filings are uploaded to my public drive “file folder” which is embedded in footnote No 6.

Has the FBI interviewed Rep Gosar and the AZ Oath Keeper “leader”?

Because I would submit that the FBI should ask Rep Gosar what he said to the Oath Keepers in November and December 2020 and if Rep Gosar conspired with the Oath Keepers - let’s roll the tape? Arroyo comments in the second segment are deeply concerning and if Rep Gosar actually said “we are in a civil war but people haven’t been shooting each other” …to wit Arroyo states “that’s about to change” —I think any seasoned Prosector could argue “intent”

File411’s Newsletter

Discussion about this post