William Chrestman case update - it’s a lot to unwrap - 6th defendant charged Ryan ASHLOCK

And it appears the Orange Fluorescence Tape added yet another defendant - as previously disclosed in the affidavit “the investigation is ONGOING”...

Feb 25, 2021

I’m sorry - I’m not a cyborg or superhuman:

Apologies for my delayed update concerning Defendant Chrestman and the newly charge defendant. I’m not a cyborg running on super-advanced AI. I am but a single individual, who also works full time, who’s children (like millions of other parents) have not stepped foot in their schools for 11+ months. And I am not at all cut out to homeschool my children while working and blogging.
In short I used Twitter to get information out in the public domain, primarily for expediency. Occasionally I would do deep dives and present my research in a disjointed and abbreviated parlance via a Twitter thread. Conversely blogging requires significant amount of time to wrap words around the “raw/unfiltered” facts and vetting and re-vetting my research. So it’s not like I can slap a few hundred words and hit publish.

Nor am I paid to research and write. I pay for my own court filings and then upload to a public drive so you don’t have to pay for them.

So let’s just get into the William Chrestman et al update…

Share File411’s Newsletter

🟧 Proud Boys Orange Fluorescent Tape-Crew adds another defendant;

On February 15, 2021 I published this article which explained why this case absolutely warrants extra attention. At the time I had noted in the affidavit (I think it was a footnote) the affiant stated “the investigation is ongoing1” - one could reasonably assume the subtext was - more defendants would be forthcoming. That is exactly what happened in the late afternoon of February 23, 2021. At the time of publication Defendant Ashlock has not been added to the DOJ Capitol Breach Cases Database, found here

At first glance the affidavit (ECF/PACER) as to Defendant Ryan Ashlock you would think it’s not related to the William Chrestman Conspiracy2 3 - until you read paragraph 3 - right there in black and white;

“…other subjects of the conspiracy… in images included throughout this Affidavit, ASHLOCK had fluorescent orange tape affixed to his clothing… ASHLOCK’s intent, as well as coordination and planning with the other subjects of the conspiracy…”

In paragraph 4, of the ASHLOCK affidavit (ECF/PACER) on February 11, 2021 law enforcement interviewed ASHLOCK. Who spoke about the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. During the course of this interview ASHLOCK admitted to being at the Capitol and was with the other (now charged) defendants of the conspiracy. He confirmed to investigators that he not only drove to D.C. but also lodged (unclear if it was a hotel room or an AirBnB) with the other five defendants. Consequently ASHLOCK also confirmed that he and the other defendant coordinated their efforts. But nothing criminal (he really said that)

As more time passes, you should know naturally more facts will be disclosed. For example the Affiant included this picture (the red circle is mine - it is not original to the affidavit) notes the timeline is now around 1PM (previously the affidavits of the five other defendants noted around 2:05PM)

Again at the time of Chrestman’s Affidavit was unsealed, it was obvious that those researching the January 6th insurrectionist should go back and rewatch footage for groups moving in concert and especially if they had Orange Fluorescent Tape. In my line of work that’s known as a reach back. Meaning if you are presented new data, it is prudent to go back and re-read/review the past research to see if you missed something on the “first sweep”

Remarkably when three of the previous defendants were being processed they informed the FBI agents about Ryan ASHLOCK. No really one of the previously arrested defendants “orally” told FBI agents about ASHLOCK and his role in the furtherance of the Conspiracy…(red arrows and text are mine) I actually think there might be at least three additional defendants that will be charged, note the man to the left of ASHLOCK.

Relevant Court Filings as to Defendant Ryan ASHLOCK:

Criminal Complaint via ECF/PACER (DDC MJCase # 1:21-mj-00241)
Affidavit via ECF/PACER (DDC MJ Case # 1:21-mj-00241) or my public drive
DDC MJ Case Docket Report ECF/PACER or my public drive
Kansas District Court (KDC) - MJ Case # 2:21-mj-08030, docket report ECF/PACER or via my public drive
ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE as to Ryan Ashlock, ECF/PACER or via my public drive.

The remaining 16 pages of the affidavit is a recitation of the previous affidavits as to defendants William Chrestman, Louis Enrique Colon & Christopher Kuehne, Cory & Felicia Konold - It is oddly satisfying to find out that something I had predicted on Jan 8, 2021 now appears to have come to fruition.

I went back to the footage I had archived (before Twitter suspended my account) and I found this video and subsequently identified at least nine other defendants. More importantly though, the proper expectation that there will, undoubtedly be many more defendants. As you can see by the video compilation (below) there are at least twenty two other unidentified proud boys also wearing the Orange Fluorescent Tape.

William CHRESTMAN - update

February 19, 2021 - Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara denied the Government’s request to detain Defendant Chrestman, pending trial MEMORANDUM AND ORDER4 (ECF/PACER) or highlighted & annotated copy found on my public drive - after reading the full order, logically I am struggling to follow the Judge’s rationale.
Meaning twelve out of seventeen pages gives a play by play of why Chrestman should be detained. Then inexplicably the Judge pulls a hard left turn and orders his release. Importantly the Kansas Magistrate Judge also refused to transfer Chrestmen to DDC. Hence why the Government immediately filed in DDC (aren’t you glad that I explained the MJ cases and districts) an emergency Stay…

As the Court explained in their Order, Defendants are entitled to not only the presumption of innocence but the Government must make via clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant’s Detention - governed by the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (BRA1984). See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 to 31505. The BRA1984 grants Judges the power to make decisions about detention. However are threshold matters and “test” based on the individual case, facts, evidence proffered by the Government. In short the BRA gives Judges as lot of leeway.

With obvious grounds for reservation, the government’s motion is respectfully denied,” U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara 17-page opinion. “However, the defendant’s pretrial release will be subject to very stringent conditions, most notably home incarceration with electronic monitoring.”

Magistrate Judge Ordered Defendant Chrestman’s release - and as previously mentioned the Prosectors immediately filed in DDC a MOTION for Emergency Stay and MOTION (ECF/PACER) for Review of Release Order by USA as to WILLIAM CHRESTMAN6
Thus pitting two districts potentially against each other. However jurisdictions reigns supreme. Meaning the complaint’s original jurisdiction is in DC versus Kansas, where the arrest occurred.7 In the emergency motion we now know a few more facts. Chrestmen gave his guns to a co-conspirator, previously the Govt stated “an associate”

Shortly thereafter, CHIEF District Court Judge BERYL A. HOWELL - granted the Government’s request to STAY the MJ order and the Defendant was not released.

And on February 23, 2021 Chief Judge Howell ORDERED (ECF/PACER) Defendant Chrestmen transport from Kansas to DC. He is scheduled for a hearing on February 26, 2021

…and now I believe you are completely debriefed on the various updates. Again look at the video and see all the potential future defendants with either orange tape on helmets, vest or worn as an arm band.

File411’s Newsletter