Unrepentant Jan6th Defendant Robertson your bond REVOKED- detained pending trial
I was only going to publish one newsletter today but when my alert went off that the Court had docketed (the long awaited) Order —I decided to publish the order & remind you that fact matter
July 7, 2021 - you really should reread this article because I literally dumped the search warrants, the affidavits, the two previously Orders Conditions of Release and walked you through the unbelievable amount of new evidence proffered by the Government - this article will help guide you through today’s Order which revoked Defendant Robertson’s Bond and he’s now detained pending trial - I also think there will likely be a superseding indictment because 37 guns some are classified as weapons of war….
As reported by the local CBS news affiliate WISA9 - last week the Court held a oral hearing regarding Defendant Robertson, his son Hunter and Prosectors made it pretty clear they thought Robertson’s son Hunter was lying in his affidavit
July 28, 2021 ORDER
During last week’s hearing the Judge stated that “you’ve thrown a curve ball at me, I’m going to need a few days to carefully consider the arguments”
ORDER granting 30 Motion to Revoke Release as to THOMAS ROBERTSON (1). See full Order for details. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 07/28/2021. See DCC-ECF link https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04508675165 - so let’s go ahead dissect today’s Order (see Scribd link unless you want to pay for the filing) shall we?
The Court really put serious thought and consideration of arguments presented by the parties - but in the end the Government’s weight of evidence and arguments and granted the Government’s motion to revoke Defendant Robertson’s Bond. And he is now remanded into the custody of the Attorney General and will be detained pending trial. I do think defendant Robertson will file a notice of appeal but that’s a really long shot because the Government proffered incredibly strong evidence that Defendant Robertson repeatedly violated the conditions of release…
Robertson has not rebutted this presumption…
this essentially requires the Defendant to “rebut” evidence that prosecutors included in their various motion that “there are no combinations of conditions that can ensure the safety of the community, if released” To be fair this is an extraordinarily high bar to meet but as previously noted Defendant Robertson didn’t even try… his legal filings —I believe on the 7th & 23rd I was like “that’s it, that’s the whole of your argument? Good lord at least try…” he didn’t and the Court made note of his lack of effort —especially concerning his absurd §2nd Amendment regarding 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) Defendant Robertson literally argued that §922(n) is unconstitutional…
…will grant the motion. Defendant detained pending trial
“…there is probable cause to believe that Robertson committed a felony—willfully shipping or transporting firearms and ammunition despite being under felony indictment—while on pretrial release. Under the applicable statute, this finding gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that Robertson cannot be safely released into the community pending trial under any conditions. Robertson has not rebutted this presumption…
Again the various search warrants previous Conditions of release I embedded all of those documents in the article below and created a public folder on my public Google drive - so I recommend you reread the July 7th Article —as those documents will help guide you through pages 2 thru 9 of today’s Order
Defendant Robertson’s recalcitrant and unapologetic social media post are a further affront to his complete disregard for the “rule of law” and the oath he took as a police officer.
January 8, he posted: “Peace is done. Now is the time for all the braggart ‘Patriots’ to buckle armor or shut the fuck up. Facebook warriors time is done. The next revolution started 1/6/21 in case you ‘Im ready’ and ‘standing by’ guys missed it.”
January 14, 2021 Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou..issued a written order setting conditions for Robertson’s release, including that Robertson “must not violate any federal, state, or local law while on release” and must “refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapons.”
January 19, 2021 Federal district. Judge Harvey issued another order enumerating conditions of Robertson’s pretrial release, including the requirements to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and to refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other weapon…
The Court then reiterated the evidence proffered by prosecutors
June 10, Robertson touted his pending charges on a Gunbroker.com forum, stating:
“I’ve said before. They are trying to teach us a lesson. They have. But its definitely not the intended lesson. I have learned that if you peacefully protest than you will be arrested, fired, be put on a no fly list, have your name smeared and address released by the FBI so every loon in the US can send you hate mail. I have learned very well that if you dip your toe into the Rubicon. . . . cross it. Cross it hard and violent and play for all the marbles.”
A total of 37 guns purchased by Robertson NOT 34 but 37
I now refer you to page 4 of today’s Order - paragraphs 1 and 2 confirm Robertson’s son Hunter did in fact testify last week and that prosecutors believe Hunter lied in his affidavit and likely perjured himself while testifying.
Moreover paragraph 3 confirms Defendant Robertson had purchased a total of 37 guns, not 34. Each of these guns were shipped to Tactical Operations, Inc. —which is a Federal Firearms License holder in Roanoke, VA… moreover the Order also disclosed that FBI agents conducted a voluntary interview of the owner of Tactical Operations, Inc… previous this was implied and I am pretty sure I previously stated that we will learn the FBI did their job and they likely interviewed the Owner. Turns out — fact check true
Also I’d recommend you reread 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a). as this particular statute there are a few factors the Court is required to consider. Again you’ll note that this is an “either or” situation —meaning it’s not all inclusive.
“shall enter an order of revocation and detention if, after a hearing,” the Court finds that;
(1) there is either “probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or local crime while on release” or “clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any other condition of release,” and
(2) either “there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community” or “the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.”
the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
the weight of the evidence,
the defendant’s history and characteristics, and
the nature and seriousness of the danger release would pose.
“[i]f there is probable cause to believe that, while on release, the person committed a Federal, State, or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)
The Court then makes the determination that the Government proved beyond reasonable doubt that Defendant Robertson flagrantly violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(n)— which reads in part;
..(n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign com- merce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 1
And then the Court just shred’s Defendant Robertson’s “rebuttal” argument -specifically citing previous Supreme Court Rulings:
..the Supreme Court has explained that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which expressly prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting firearms in interstate commerce, also bars the same individuals from “causing” a firearm “to be shipped interstate.” Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212, 218 (1976) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Smith, 542 F.2d 711, 714-15 (7th Cir. 1976)
…as the Supreme Court noted in another firearm-control case, the ordinary meaning of the verb “ship” includes having an item shipped by a third party. See Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 135 (1998) (“If Smith, for example, calls a parcel delivery service, which sends a truck to Smith’s house to pick up Smith’s package and take it to Los Angeles, one might say that Smith has shipped the package[.]”).
Robertson also suggests, with hardly any elaboration…
As the Court correctly points out
United States v. Laurent, 861 F. Supp. 2d 71, 104 (E.D.N.Y. 2011); see also Call, 874 F. Supp. 2d at 978… that the prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) is strictly limited to a very small subset of individuals and it’s also limited in time - meaning that once the Defendant is found not guilty then §922(n) would no longer apply. The fact that Defendant Robertson speciously tried to argue §922(n) is a violation of the second amendment —it is galling and offensive. Thusly the Court completely annihilated Defendant Robertson’s argument
I mean see what I highlighted and underlined? That’s the jurisprudence of elegant way of saying “your argument sucks —try again with better words and case citations”
…There is also probable cause to believe that Robertson’s violation of § 922(n) was willful.. a reasonable person could draw
…the inference that Robertson acted with consciousness of guilt in ordering firearms and ammunition for delivery to the gun dealer. It appears that Robertson may have attached the label “Wedding Photos” to a Venmo transaction that was actually for ammunition, suggesting an effort to avoid detection. See Mot. to Revoke Release at 6-7. This evidence suffices to create a “fair probability”—in other words, probable cause—that Robertson’s alleged actions in violation of §922(n) were willful
Also with respect to non-violent versus violent - I explained in this article why the July 7, 2021 Ruling was so important —I’ll never understand why most overlooked this incredibly important ruling
Decided July 7, 2021 — Case No. 21-3029 - Summary - what the July 7th Ruling does —if a defendant is charged with non-violent crime or destruction of property the District Courts could rule the Defendant is a danger to the common and thusly could remain in custody aka detained pending trial, provided if the Government proffers various indications that the defendant poses a danger to the community.
A highlighted and annotated copy of the USCA-DC can be found on my public drive
The fact that Robertson is charged with committing nonviolent offenses during the Capitol riot would not be an independently sufficient ground to detain him, see Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284, and the government did not seek to detain him based on the original charges. Nevertheless, the allegations against Robertson are serious and include a felony charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The D.C. Circuit has recognized that defendants charged with similar conduct on January 6 may properly be detained, depending on other relevant circumstances. See United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, No. 21-3029, 2021 WL 2816245, at *5 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2021) (“January 6 defendants” should not “get the special treatment of an automatic exemption from detention if they did not commit violence on that particular day”).
Second, “the weight of the evidence against” Robertson, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2), supports detention. Robertson does not contest that he entered the Capitol on January 6, as captured on video which the Court has reviewed.
Third, Robertson’s “history and characteristics,” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3), do not reassure the Court that he can be safely released into the community pending trial. To his credit, Robertson appears to have served honorably in the United States Army and as a police officer.
…Robertson has expressed remorselessness and endorsed future political violence…
Even more concerningly, the events precipitating the instant motion are not Robertson’s first violation of his conditions of release. As Robertson admits, Hearing Tr. at 20-21, law enforcement found firearms at his home on January 19,after the deadline to relocate those firearms set by Judge Ballou. Even after January, Robertson appears to have continued violating the prohibition against possessing firearms.
..has been further radicalized by his pending prosecution..
“the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by [Robertson’s] release,” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4), also tend to support detention. The undisputed facts demonstrate a concrete risk that Robertson might participate in or provide material support to acts of ideologically motivated violence if released at this time. His recent social media posts may contain elements of bravado and hyperbole, but they provide evidence that Robertson is sympathetic to calls for a violent “revolution,”
-for now you are fully caught up to speed on Defendant Robertson - I swear I was only going to publish one newsletter toady but as soon as I saw the alert —I was like okie dokie my readers/followers need to know forthwith.
My lexicon has improved greatly in regards to "legalese". Thanx for improving my knowledge of how the courts/law actually work. Spicy files rock!
Former military, former law enforcement. Did he think that would buy him release? what chutzpah