| US Judge
Defers John Earle Sullivan Bail or Jail
Decision Until Feb 8 After InfoWars Video
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Song Song
II
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
FEDERAL COURT,
Feb 5 – Among the cases
brought by the US Department
of Justice in the wake of the
events of January 6 in the
U.S. Capitol, that of John
Earle Sullivan stands out.
On January
15 Sullivan appeared before
U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah Magistrate
Judge Daphne A. Oberg for the
type of detention hearing that
has resulted in the jailing of
Cleveland Grover Meredith and
Lonnie Coffman in DC, and
Eduard Florea in the EDNY in
New York.
But this
one went differently: DOJ did
not even file a detention
memo, or meet the threshold
that was met on Meredith. Full
just-filed list of conditions
of release on Patreon here.
Song here.
Inner City Press live tweeted
on January 15, here.
Now on
February 5, DOJ took a second
shot on new facts, including
an iPhone, and InfoWars
interview and text messages,
before U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia
Magistrate Judge Robin M.
Meriweather, now put over to
February 8. Inner City Press
live tweeted it here
(and put the 26 page detention
memo on Patreon here)
AUSA for now is
focused on DDC having
jurisdiction to consider
detaining Sullivan. But why
didn't DOJ submit any
detention memo to the Utah
court?
AUSA says
Sullivan has been violating
the conditions of his release,
in ways that implicate
obstruction of justice.
Alleges Sullivan exhorted
Insurgents USA LCC members to
support him.
AUSA: "We have
his interview on InfoWars on
January 26, he describes
circumventing restrictions on
his Internet use... There are
no conditions for release. He
poses a recurring threat to
the community. Judge
Meriweather: What about risk
of failing to appear?
AUSA: We are not
relying on risk of flight. I
have more to add on danger to
the community.
Sullivan's lawyer: My client's
parents are present. On
obstruction, this is a big
leap. Allegation 5 is not
obstruction. He used his email
to say, Pack the courtroom.
Sullivan's
lawyer: You are impinging his
Constitutional rights. If
there is a technical
violation, that's one thing.
But it is not intimidating the
court. The court should
discount it.
Sullivan's
lawyer: My client was born and
lived most of his life in
Virginia, then they moved to
Utah so he could try to be an
Olympian speed skater. He has
I.T. skills.
AUSA: He did not
only send an email. You have a
list of five violations. He's
working for and promoting
Insurgents USA - the
Magistrate was clear all he
could do was pay taxes.
[Actually, also collect monies
due for videos, if memory
serves...]
AUSA: On the 19th
he purchased an iPhone at a
Verizon store. He was told,
flip phone only. He accessed
Twitter. He opened a web
browser to look for
alternative Facebook. We
listed nine platforms,
including Periscope and
Reddit. We gave the list on
the 16th. AUSA: They he
appeared on InfoWars and asked
that Insurgents USA be
credited. He said he stands by
his actions and is not
responsible for anything that
happened that day. There's an
article about how Sullivan
followed a journalist on
Twitter [!]
AUSA: These were
knowing violations. The
footage speaks for itself. On
the 6th he was not a passive
observer. He's made a career
out of following riots. He
urges physical violence. 'Haul
that mother f*cker out," he
was heard to say
AUSA: He
was urging the police to leave
their posts. He was there when
the woman was shot and he
said, Go, go, get that sh*t.
He has deep experience with
riots. He said, "It's only a
little jail time, I do this
all the time."
AUSA: In Provo,
he organized an event at which
firearms were brandished and
shots were fired. He
threatened, "I'll eat your as*
b*tch," and hit a vehicle with
a woman inside. His brazen
defiance means he poses a
recurring threat.
AUSA: He said,
Riots are meant to change the
world, to purge the world with
fire. He was involved in the
Portland riots. This was not a
blip. This was not an
aberration. His organization
has made fundraising campaigns
on Facebook, for bullet proof
vests
Pre-Trial
Services (from Utah) - We tell
supervisees to use the
Internet, not apps, so we can
monitor them. That's how we
discovered some of the
allegations in this
case.
Sullivan's
lawyer: He showed the iPhone
to the monitors, they told
him, Get an Android.Sullivan's
lawyer: Let's talk about
InfoWars. Mr. Sullivan was not
prohibited from speaking with
InfoWars. And they asked to
post his website, not the
other way around. I don't know
why InfoWars did what they
did.
Sullivan's
lawyer: This is a
misunderstanding. I would urge
the court to leave him on the
loose. Judge
Meriweather: Allegation 4 says
Mr. Sullivan furthered
Insurgents USA on the
Internet. When were the
communications with InfoWars?
Pre Trial: Jan
26, 10:22 am
Pre-Trial
Services: InfoWars asked, what
links do you want? And he
answered, Insurgents USA.
Judge Meriweather: What about
the flip phone requirement?
Pre-Trial: We set up GPS in
his home. His father asked
questions. And I called back
on January 16 about phones.
AUSA: On
InfoWars, Mr. Sullivan said, I
have my company Insurgents
USA. So that was promotion. He
claims he only knew on Jan 26
- but the hearing was Jan 16.
And the defense counsel was
emailed with list of websites.
He filed a waiver on Jan 25,
so they spoke.
Judge
Meriweather: Do I have a copy
of the email that was sent to
Mr. Sullivan's counsel? Please
send it to me. And the
InfoWars video, is it on the
Internet that I can see it if
I take a recess? AUSA: Yes.
Judge
Meriweather: Are his parents
going to testify, about what
they were told? Sullivan's
lawyer: I'm prepared to rest.
Judge Meriweather: I'm going
to take a recess to watch the
InfoWars video.
Programming note:
Judge Meriweather will
apparently be watching the
InfoWars video for 25 minutes,
until 5:20. Inner City Press
will be back on this thread at
that time, if not before.
Interim
update of 5:24 pm: apparently
the InfoWars video is pretty
engrossing. Judge Meriweather
is not back yet, to rule on
Sullivan. #BailOrJail
OK, Judge
Meriweather is back, says:
"During the recess I look into
some of the issues, including
copies of emails. I am going
to continue this detention
hearing to Monday at 3:30 pm.
The issues warrant further
research on my end.
Judge
Meriweather: Given that Mr.
Sullivan is not in custody, I
think I can take the time to
look into this rather than
have you all waiting. The
motion remains under
advisement. We are adjourned.
Watch this site.
And, #insurrectionBlues goes
electric, here.
Inner City Press
put online on January 16, US
Magistrate Judge Daphne A.
Oberg's order explains why,
full order on Patreon here:
"The court orders John Earle
Sullivan’s release in this
case, based on a finding that
the government did not
establish a basis to hold a
detention hearing. Mr.
Sullivan made his initial
appearance at a transfer
hearing, conducted pursuant to
Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Mr.
Sullivan has been charged with
federal offenses in
Washington, D.C., and the Rule
5 hearing was held for
purposes of transferring him
there. At this hearing, the
government made a verbal
motion for detention and asked
the court to continue Mr.
Sullivan’s detention hearing
for three days, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). However,
in this case, the government
simply did not meet its burden
of establishing any basis for
a detention hearing.
Because the court
finds the threshold conditions
under § 3142(f) have not been
met, it cannot hold a
detention hearing and, thus,
cannot detain the
defendant....In this case, the
government did not establish a
basis for the detention
hearing. When asked at the
hearing on what statutory
grounds the case qualified for
a detention hearing, the
government first began to
argue dangerousness to the
community—a factor the court
cannot even consider unless it
first finds the case qualifies
for a detention hearing. The
government then indicated the
case qualified under §
3142(f)(2)(B). Under this
provision, a case qualifies
for a detention hearing if the
government establishes “a
serious risk that such person
will obstruct or Case
2:21-mj-00014-DAO Document 8
Filed 01/15/21 PageID.37 Page
2 of 5 3 attempt to obstruct
justice, or threaten, injure,
or intimidate, or attempt to
threaten, injure, or
intimidate, a prospective
witness or juror.” Id. This is
a forward-looking inquiry,
requiring a showing of a
serious risk the defendant
will obstruct justice in the
future. ...
The court invited
the government to provide any
legal authority allowing the
temporary detention of a
defendant when the threshold
for holding a detention
hearing has not been met. The
government declined to do so.
The government also asked the
court to stay its release
order. The court declined to
do so, finding that where the
government failed to even meet
the threshold for a detention
hearing, it could not detain
Mr. Sullivan pending the
government’s appeal.
CONCLUSION Where the
government failed to
establish, as a threshold
matter, that this case meets
the preconditions in § 3142(f)
for holding a detention
hearing, the court must
release Mr. Sullivan. The
release conditions can be
found in a separate order."
Song on SoundCloud here.
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
