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.
