Zip-tie Eric Munchel & Mom, Lisa Eisenhart -case update- 3/30/2021 RELEASE ORDER

Criminal Complaint, Indictment, and current state of play for their criminal case(s) - specifically USCA-DC Appeal. There are a lot of files and I make zero apologies to ensure my readers have access

Mar 27, 2021

Fair warning this is going to be a document heavy article, and as is my standard practice I’ll do my best to concisely summarize while providing you with the prerequisite legal filings.

January and February 2021:

Defendants Eric Munchel and Lisa Eisenhart were originally charged by criminal complaint, ECF or via my public drive and accompanying Affidavit/Statement of Facts, ECF or via my public drive

Charge(s); 18 U.S.C. § 371 -Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3)-Civil Disorders, 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a) -Restricted Building or Grounds, and 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)Violent Entry or Disorderly Conduct

January 26, 2021 the Government filed an Emergency Stay and appealed the MDTN Magistrate Judge’s release order ECF or via my public drive
ORDER, (ECF or via my public drive) as to LISA MARIE EISENHART, GRANTING the government's 6 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 26, 2021
STATUS REPORT by USA as to ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL, LISA MARIE EISENHART (ECF, or via my public drive)
INDICTMENT as to ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, LISA MARIE EISENHART (2) count(s) 1, 2, 3 via ECF or via my public drive

For the record the following February 17, 2021 - MEMORANDUM OPINION (ECF or via my public drive) as to ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL (1) and LISA MARIE EISENHART is the subject of the recent appeals —On January 10, 2021, FBI Agents executed a search warrant on Munchel’s apartment, which he also shares with this brother;

One could argue that the cost of lawfully acquiring fifteen firearms, which included a sniper rifle and numerous “assault rifles” coupled with a drum magazine…that would require a significant amount of money to purchase. For example an AR-15 can cost anywhere from $500 to $2,000.

” …agents found a tactical vest with patches matching the vest Munchel wore on January 6, "four or five" sets of plastic handcuffs, fifteen firearms (including a sniper rifle and multiple assault rifles), a drum magazine, and a large quantity of loaded magazine…”

In this Order the Court made the following statements —see pages 9 thru 13 but specifically page 10 which reads in part;

“….alleged conduct demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the rule of law… alleged to have taken part in a mob, which displaced the elected legislature in an effort to subvert our constitutional government and the will of more than 81 million voters… conduct indicates that he is willing to use force to promote his political ends. Such conduct poses a clear risk to the community… Defense counsel's portrayal of the alleged offenses as mere trespassing or civil disobedience is both unpersuasive and detached from reality…”

The court articulated its finding of facts, specifically pointing to both MUNCHEL and EISENHART “words” captured in the fifty (50) minute long video that MUNCHEL recorded on his iPhone. Which MUNCHEL later gave to a friend “for safe keeping” but it’s this one sentence in the Court’s February 17, 2021 Order that is chilling “a self-avowed, would-be martyr, she poses a clear danger to our republic”

February 18, 2021 NOTICE of Filing by LISA MARIE EISENHART, document no 29 via ECF, document no 29-1 transcript of January 25, 2021 hearing, ECF or via my public drive.
February 18, 2021 NOTICE OF APPEAL (ECF) - Interlocutory by LISA MARIE EISENHART re 27 Order on Motion for Review,, Order on Motion to Stay,,,, Order on Motion to Revoke,,, 24 Memorandum Opinion, 26 Order of Detention Pending Trial

March 2021 filings:

March 4, 2021 NOTICE of Filing (First Discovery Letter ECF or via my public drive) filed by USA as to ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL, LISA MARIE EISENHART —note that the Government disclose some forty (40) items extracted from MUNCHEL’s cellphone

If you are going to ask me - what was the exact moment that this case may have gone off the rails and gave rise to the Defendant’s collective and individual appeal(s) concerning the Pretrial Detention Order, it is Document No: 39

Memorandum in Opposition by ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL, LISA MARIE EISENHART re 36 MOTION to Supplement the Record Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2)(B) via ECF or via my public drive (pay attention to the footnote # 3…it’s important)

The Defendants jointly filed the Opposition and its a vexing filing because they are accusing the Prosecutor of misconduct and potentially abusing the Ex Parte to get additional evidence into the record, directly impacting their appeal. Incidentally the prosecutor in question recently filed a notice of withdrawal from this case. I would caution you in making any adverse inference to his notice of withdrawal- as that does happen.

Furthermore the Court heavily relied upon the 50 minute iPhone video - the Defense lodged strenuous objections to not supplement the Appeal Record but failed to cite any case surrounding “Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure governs the record on appeal” —Rule 10 which grants the Court the ability to supplement the record -especially if it appears a file (or in this case the video) was not properly entered into the record. Consider this a JD clean up on aisle iPhone video. Lastly and in an ironic twist the defendant actually entered a truncated video file of the iPhone video. Hence once that seal is broken - there are no “take backs” —but I digress

ORDER granting 36 Motion to Supplement the Record Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2)(B) as to ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL (1) and LISA MARIE EISENHART (2). via ECF or via my public drive

MOTION to Review Confinement Conditions or for Transfer to a More Suitable Jail Facility (ECF or via my public drive) by LISA MARIE EISENHART. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -emails between Jail & Eisenhart’s Counsel, via ECF or via my public drive)
RESPONSE by USA as to LISA MARIE EISENHART re 40 MOTION to Review Confinement Conditions or for Transfer to a More Suitable Jail Facility via ECF or via my public drive - the Government’s position; “defendant Eisenhart has failed to present a legally cognizable constitutional challenge to her conditions of confinement, her motion should be denied”
NOTICE of Filing via ECF or via my public drive (Second Informal Discovery Letter) by USA as to ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL, LISA MARIE EISENHART (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Informal Discovery Letter Volume 2 via ECF or via my public drive) - “Search Warrant Photos” which contains a zip file containing 147 photos and the 147 individual photos that were taken during execution of the search warrant.
REPLY TO OPPOSITION to Motion by LISA MARIE EISENHART re 40 MOTION to Review Confinement Conditions or for Transfer to a More Suitable Jail Facility via ECF or via my public drive - I’m not saying she’s making a decent argument but intellectually I can say she has a decent defense attorney who’s presenting some interesting arguments.

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 40 Motion for Review of Conditions of Confinement as to LISA MARIE EISENHART (2). Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth via ECF or via my public drive - In short the Court excoriated the Defendant’s arguments;

defendant has not established that the Department of Corrections treated her differently from other inmates held for similar offenses defendant's equal protection claims fail….the Court must conclude that the defendant has not raised a cognizable violation of the Due Process Clause.

The Appeals (yes multiple appeals)

The first appeal of Defendants Munchel and Eisenhart addressed the Magistrate Judge and subsequently the Chief Judge’s Order(s) detaining each defendant pending trial. The USCA-DC Case No. 21-3010, Consolidated with 21-3011.
I understand that there’s a misguided narrative (mainly on Twitter) that the USDA-DC “Munchel and Eisenhart are going to be released” well I’d like to set the record straight, not with my opinion (which is immaterial) but with the March 26, 2021 USCA-DC Order.

In the past I’ve tried to explain the process1 and for those who don’t know “de novo” literally means “start anew” meaning the district court

The Panel Held - unlike the Magistrate Judge - the District Court Judge had the benefit of adduced evidence:

government submitted substantial additional evidence to the district judge that had not been presented to the Magistrate Judge, including the 50-minute iPhone video, a partial transcript of the video, and several videos from Capitol CCTV

The Panel held that the appellant’s argument that the District Court erred “in not deferring to the Magistrate Judge’s…factual findings…” Because 1) the District Court proceeded under “de novo review” and the government proffered additional evidence..

Thirdly the panel rejected the Defendants arguments under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(E) because two counts in the indictment cite “dangerous weapon”

The panel held that because the district court failed to

”adequately demonstrate that it considered whether Munchel and Eisenhart posed an articulable threat to the community in view of their conduct on January 6, and the particular circumstances of January 6…
based its dangerousness determination on a finding that “Munchel’s alleged conduct indicates that he is willing to use force to promote his political ends,”…that “[s]uch conduct poses a clear risk to the community.”… demonstrate that it considered the specific circumstances that made it possible, on January 6, for Munchel and Eisenhart to threaten the peaceful transfer of power…

And lastly the panel held:

…we conclude that the appropriate resolution of this case is to remand the detention orders for reconsideration forthwith of the government’s oral motion for pretrial detention.

The second appeal was filed/noticed on March 25, 2016 NOTICE OF APPEAL - Interlocutory by LISA MARIE EISENHART re 48 Order on Motion for Review. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified - via ECF - simultaneously Defendant Eisenhart filed:

Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The fee was not paid because it was filed by CJA as to LISA MARIE EISENHART re 53 Notice of Appeal - Interlocutory - via ECF or via my public drive

Updated -March 28, 2021 12:54AM

The fact both defendants claimed their Trip to DC was a spur of the moment aka last minute trip, that absolutely strains credulity. Moreover a central part of their defense strategy to be released is they “do not have the financial means to flee” Yet Eisenhart & Munchel apparently had the financial means to book not one but two last minute flights to DC? They booked a hotel room at one of the more expensive Hotels in DC.

The last time I stayed at the DC Grand Hyatt —it was late-summer 2018, for a wedding. The bride & groom negotiated a pretty decent group discount for wedding guest. My two night stay at the same hotel that the Defendant stayed, my bill was north of $945. Once you factor in occupancy tax >14%, sales tax, meal tax, parking/valet fee and a few other nominal charges, I booked a Junior suite. So the Defendant’s new found indigent status is difficult to be viewed as credible.

Also I would be very curious to know, who referred Defendant Eisenhart to Greg Smith and who’s footing the growing legal fees. And with that, I think you should be fully caught up on the Munchel & Eisenhart case.

March 30, 2021 Update - District Court Order

There are times that I am at a complete loss for words. Late yesterday evening the District Court Issued an Order ECF or via my public drive and Order Setting conditions of release ECF or via my public drive) - releasing Lisa Eisenhart from Custody.

ORDER as to ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL (1) and LISA MARIE EISENHART (2) vacating 25 Order of Detention Pending Trial and 26 Order of Detention Pending Trial, ordering ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL (1) and LISA MARIE EISENHART (2) released subject to conditions, ordering counsel for defendants to obtain and docket acknowledgements, ordering counsel for defendants to docket under seal contact information for third-party custodians, and ordering the USMS to release ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL (1) and LISA MARIE EISENHART (2) forthwith. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/29/2021

3/30/2021 Document 63 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by ERIC GAVELEK MUNCHEL, LISA MARIE EISENHART re 57 Order on Motion to Expedite and 60 Order of Release - Defendants' Written Acknowledgements (Smith, Gregory) (Entered: 03/30/2021)

-Filey

You might find this previous article worth bookmarking because I walked you through parts of the criminal process, found here.