Ryan Samsel Criminal Case Update -Choked ex-girlfriends, attempted to drown pregnant girlfriend, knocked out teeth, and repeatedly raped an ex.

I make zero apologies but Ryan Samsel is a thug that likes to beat and rape women so if the Court decides to release him- Imma gonna lose my mind = Samsel is exactly where he belongs - in custody.

Domestic Abuser with a long history

For background you might want to read this article from February 2021 - it’s actually relevant given what the Government recently disclosed in their newly filed Opposition to Defendant Samsel’s “instant motion” regarding detention. Meaning Defendant Samsel has a documented history of Domestic Violence.

Ergo the fact his girl friend Rachael Genco was also charged. But her docket has been kind of silent. Beyond the April 26, 2021 Consent Motion to Continue Preliminary Hearing to June 17, 2021

Time between 4/27/2021 and 6/17/2021 (52 Days) shall be excluded from calculation under the Speedy Trial Act

Preliminary Hearing continued to 6/17/2021 at 10:30 AM in Telephonic/VTC

With respect to Defendant Samsel’s girlfriend (also) Defendant Raechel Genco —the only other docket activity was an April 29, 2021 Unopposed Motion for Permission to Leave Her Residence Earlier than the Curfew. The catalyst was she wanted to attend a funeral on May 3, 2021. DDC-ECF https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04518490126 - or via my public drive

USA v Genco Unopposed Motion…

And you might find rewatching this February 2021 video helpful in terms of substance and context before we dive deep into the Government’s most recent filing. I think it will provide you with both content and context of the Defendant’s instant motion asking the Court to release him from detention. And when I say the Government’s Opposition is excoriating, it really is.

Dude likes to beat his girlfriend(s), choke ‘em out to the point of loss of consciousness and threw one into a canal and attempted to drown her, even though she was carrying Defendant Samsel’s unborn child. Trust me on this, pages 11 et seq of the June 2, 2021 Government’s Opposition is absolutely devastating to the Defendant.

A quick tick tock of the recent docket activity. I’m genuinely a single person who (has a full time job and family) and I do not have a team of botnets or FMs amplifying my findings. Moreover occasionally I inadvertently forget about certain cases. And then that requires the prerequisite docket sweep, so my readers are fully informed. I wish I could clone myself but that’s not a reality.

Duces Ryan I want out… Notice of Withdrawal

To be fair having a defense attorney filing a motion to withdraw isn’t that remarkable, in short it does happen. There are typically several reasons for a defendant and defense attorney to part ways, which include but certainly not limited to; inability to pay legal fees, adversarial relationship (meaning the defendant and defense counsel maybe at loggerheads as to the defense strategy) or a Defendant decides to go in another direction.

A preliminary review of the recent filings, my impression is Defendant Samsel is not exactly an ideal client. Based on the hearing transcript you can objectively read his combativeness. Assumption is the attorney-client dynamic is untenable at best, at worse it’s a client who’s his own worse self sabotaging maniac. Either way this created an irreconcilable canyon that his defense attorneys are like “duces Ryan —Good luck—we out”

Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by RYAN SAMSEL of Steven Metcalf - DDC-ECF https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04508530743 - or via my public drive - the relevant sections of the May 18, 2021 Motion below:

“…May 2, 2021 and May 13, 2021, Ryan continuously told undersigned counsel that he wanted to discharge Elisabeth, and that if the undersigned could not proceed that Ryan wished to proceed with the Federal Defenders Office…

The subtext of that footnote is Samsel’s (current and former) defense counsel are in full CYA-mode. Because it appears their client, Defendant Samsel comports himself to be not exactly a reasonable person/client. While some might think I’m over my skis but something tells me that there might (operative word) be so,e underlying mental health issues and it might warrant a psychological evaluation. Again, I’m not a medical expert and I’m drawing those conclusions from what’s factually in the various Court filings.

“….During the hearing today on May 18, 2021, Elisabeth and the Government raised the issue that there may be a conflict with the undersigned office…

By undersigned counsel withdrawing, he is not leaving Ryan without counsel. Ryan can continue with Elisabeth or obtain other counsel, which Ryan had indicated, unequivocally up until the day before the May 14, 2021 hearing that he would hire the Federal Defenders, if Metcalf & Metcalf, P.C. would or could not proceed.

May 20, 2021 MINUTE ORDER as to RYAN SAMSEL

Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant 22 and statements made by Defendant and his attorney, Elisabeth K. H Pasqualini, at the May 20, 2021 hearing before the Court, the Court hereby finds that granting the request by Mr. Metcalf to withdraw as counsel for Defendant would not unduly delay trial, unfairly prejudice any party, or otherwise not be in the interests of justice. It is therefore ORDERED that Mr. Metcalf's request to withdraw is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Steven A. Metcalf, II 13 and the Amended Declaration of Steven A. Metcalf in Support for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice 19 are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui on 5/20/2021.

MOTION for Release from Custody May 24, 2021

Release From Temporary Detention by RYAN SAMSEL…DDC-ECF https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04518542564 or via my public drive —Back in February 2021 I noted that the Affidavit disclosed he was on parole when he purportedly committed the crimes alleged in the Criminal Complaint and further elucidated in the Affidavit

“….discovered that he is on parole in Pennsylvania and that he is currently wanted in Riverside, New Jersey on a non- extraditable warrant from 2019 arising out of an alleged assault…”

In Samsel’s Motion to be released this is what his attorneys argued and it’s not exactly a persuasive argument. In fact it’s probably one of the weakest Motions I’ve read in a long time. At this stage the burden is on Samsel to prove to the Court his release would not endanger the Community and that his appearance for future Court hearings is reasonably assured. Further elucidate 18 U.S.C. §3142(g)(1)–(4) factors ¹ ²and the need to protect the public..

Mr. Samsel should be released to his Pennsylvania detainer because doing so will not lessen the likelihood of his appearance at future proceedings nor negatively impact the safety of any one person or the community...

Mr. Samsel is detained on the present matter and also because of a detainer lodged by the PA Board of Parole which will hold him until at least April 24, 2022. If convicted of any charge in this matter, Mr. Samsel could be detained by Pennsylvania into 2024. Should this court release Mr. Samsel, his release will be to his Pennsylvania detainer. It is highly unlikely that these proceeding will extend into 2024.Housed in a Pennsylvania state correctional institute, Mr. Samsel’s appearance at all future proceedings will be confidently secured.

MINUTE ORDER as to RYAN SAMSEL May 25, 2021

Upon review of the Motion for Release from Temporary Detention 23, it is hereby ORDERED that the government file a response, if any, by no later than 4:30 p.m. on May 27, 2021. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties confer and propose no fewer than three dates and times that work for a detention hearing; the proposed dates/times can be submitted to the Court via email or through a status report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather on 5/25/2021

Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to RYAN SAMSEL…

…re 23 MOTION for Release from Custody via DDC-ECF https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04508559701 or a highlighted and annotated copy can be found on my public drive. Also ProTip read pages 11 et seq but specifically page 11 thru 14 - it’s beyond shocking…bejesus that’s one helluva opening paragraph…

…despite the fact that he had an open warrant for assault and that he was on parole for a second, unrelated incident involving intimidation of a witness, Ryan Samsel chose to travel to Washington D.C. and to assault a U.S. Capitol Police Officer, interfering with her ability to protect the U.S. Capitol and the members of Congress and Vice President who were inside it…

Then the Government lowers the boom with perfectly calibrated precision - a pattern of physically abusive behavior - but breaking into his former girlfriend’s home to beat her up? Nope I can’t see how the Court will release you…given Defendant Samsel previously consented to his detention…

Samsel’s assault on O-1 is just the latest in a string of prior assaultive offenses, dating back all the way to 2006. The facts underlying these other convictions are extremely disturbing…

They show a pattern of Samsel choking and beating women to the point of loss of consciousness, of many hospital visits for many victims, of chipped and missing teeth, and of Samsel even breaking into one victim’s home multiple times to assault her.

February 2, Pennsylvania State Parole lodged a detainer against Samsel. On February 5, U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret ordered the defendant detained pursuant to his consent. (R. 3; 2:2-MJ-00197 EDPA)… At that hearing, he again consented to detention, reserving the right to bring up the issue at a later date, and was ordered detained.

In some respects Defendant Samsel did this to himself. Given that he’s the one who filed an filed the instant motion to revoke the magistrate judge’s order of detention.

Did Defendant Samsel not think that the Government wouldn’t file an Opposition and that their filing would go in to further details of his violent past? Or that the Government wouldn’t highlight to the Court Defendant Samsel’s actions post Jan 6th? That the defendant unquestionably bragged about what he did …bragging by sending various newspaper articles to his friends? This guy pushed a US Capitol Police Officer so hard that her head hit the concrete stairs and it knocked her out…

The forensic examination of Samsel’s phone revealed that he discussed his plans to go to Washington D.C. several days before the trip, that he took numerous videos and photographs utilizing his phone while in the vicinity of the U.S. Capitol…

…and that he sent others newspaper articles about the media coverage of him approaching the barriers at Peace Circle, bragging about his role in the incident.

Furthermore the Government is on solid footing…by assigning Samsel into a category of “violent conduct” because the facts are some of the nearly 475+ defendants not all of them were violent. Whereas the Government argues that Defendant Samsel puts him into a much more dangerous category than other defendants…stating in part;

…intent and result of his conduct was to disrupt the peaceful and orderly transition of presidential power using violence. The nature and circumstances of Samsel’s offenses show a clear disregard for the law, an aversion to the fundamental tenets of democracy, and a willingness to act violently, all of which indicate that he poses a danger to the community.

♦️Your Obligatory Trigger Warning♦️

—if you were a victim of domestic abuse, the next part of the Government’s Opposition might trigger you because the details are…shocking. So again if you are easily triggered —please take my trigger warning seriously, I would urge caution from reading further… it’s bad

Starting on page 11 of the Government’s Opposition they include numerous physical assaults —I’ll do my best to keep my personal commentary limited and strictly stick to the facts and disclosures made by the Government, but it’s bad

…Samsel has an extensive criminal history of assaultive and violent behavior. His criminal history dates all the way back to 2006. That conviction for terroristic threats, reckless endangerment, and disorderly conduct involved Samsel trying to run someone off the road because they owed him 60 dollars.

♦️2006 - Samsel’s female victim pull over, at which point seemingly unprovoked Samsel punched her windshield and told the female victim that “he knew where she lived and would kill her if he didn’t get his money”

♦️2007 - the Government obtained a 2007 police report which alleged that Samsel got into another man’s car. He then starting hitting the man in the face which caused significant injuries. The police report details that once the Ambulance arrived, the male victim was badly beaten, and the police observed his front teeth were missing and that his face was covered in blood.

♦️2009 - Samsel was convicted of simple assault and reckless endangerment. Here too the Government obtained the police report and court records. Which showed that Samsel he held a female victim against her will for five hours. During that time Samsel choked her to the point of loss of consciousness. The records obtained by the Government also include that Samsel’s 2009 assault on the female victim included; pushing her, beating her, and chipping her teeth.

♦️2011 - here again the Government obtained police reports and Court documents that confirmed Samsel was convicted of simple assault, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, and unlawful restraint. Furthermore the evidence obtained by the Government also so that Samsel engaged in witness intimidation, for the offense of him choking and beating his (then) pregnant girlfriend… in addition to the 2011 also included the following events —which are incredibly disturbing;

The allegations of that assault involved Samsel smashing a hot pizza in the victim’s face, beating the victim, pouring a beer over her head, and eventually throwing her into the canal, where he then hopped down and held her head under [water].

Government Opposition Page 12

When Samsel finally stopped holding her, the victim ran into the street barefoot and found a police vehicle. She desperately tried to open the door of the vehicle and the officer saw her and unlocked it so she could get in. Samsel later attempted to and did interfere with her testimony about what had occurred.

♦️2015 - violent incident - again the Government obtained the police report and court documents which detailed Samsel was yet again convicted of simple assault. The 2015 assault involved a different victim recounting numerous assaults by Samsel, including her alleging that “Samsel had choked her to the point of unconsciousness and that, at another point, he hit her so hard she had a hematoma”

2019 ♦️again your obligatory trigger warning♦️because what the Government proffered in the 2019 disclosure alone would give serious rise to any Court releasing Samsel - given he committed these crimes while not only on parole but has an outstanding warrant out of New Jersey too.

…a different victim came forward, recounting several incidents of Samsel choking her to the point of unconsciousness and breaking into her house and assaulting her. She described waking up vomiting, with him still in the house. The victim also alleged that Samsel raped her multiple times, and that she had often been scared he would kill her. She had obtained a restraining order, but Samsel violated the restraining order multiple times. See Govt. Ex. 6, 2019 Rept.

There is an outstanding warrant for Samsel’s arrest based on this conduct in New Jersey. Samsel was not only wanted on that that warrant at the time of the offense conduct in this case, but he was also still on parole for the 2011 conviction described above.

Not that my opinion matters, but I do I think the Government made an absolutely devastating case why Defendant Samsel should not be released from custody. To emphasize that point the Government’s closing sentence is is concise and damning…which reads in part:

“…Samsel has an extensive history of violent and assaultive behavior and of intimidation of witnesses. Reviewing the police reports from these prior incidents reveals a pattern of Samsel not only threatening to kill others, but coming extremely close to actually doing so….”

Again you can access the Government’s Opposition re 23 MOTION for Release from Custody via DDC-ECF https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04508559701 or a highlighted and annotated copy can be found on my public drive.

ProTip read pages 11 et seq but specifically page 11 thru 14 - it’s beyond shocking…I genuinely can’t see Samsel being released because what the Government proffered effectively annihilated the Defendant’s motion.

I mean nothing says QANON-MAGA-Trump believer like assaulting a law enforcement officer. By pushing her with such force that her head slammed into the concrete steps and thereafter the Officer lost consciousness. But doing this while on probation and with 2 outstanding warrants and then file an instant motion for release. Yeah good luck with that buffoonery and commonsense is unquestionably in absentia…

-Filey

1. 18 U.S.C. §3142(g) (1) thru (4) —Factors To Be Considered.—…judicial officer shall, in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, take into account the available information concerning;

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device;

(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;

(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including;

(A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past con￾duct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concern￾ing appearance at court proceedings; and

(B) whether, at the time of the current of￾fense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sen￾tence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and

(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.

2. highlighted copy of 18 U.S.C §3142(g) (1) thru (4) - found here.