Posts

Telling the Story of January 6 to the Judges Who Know It Best: The Two FBI Lawsuits

/87 Comments/in , , /by

There are a number of outlets tracking every legal challenge to Trump and Elon Musk’s power grabs. For example, JustSecurity has this litigation tracker, including the multiple suits (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven) that attempt to stop Elon’s invasion. Some may well succeed in enjoining Elon’s actions — but they’ll lead to a confrontation over who will enforce the orders.

Two lawsuits filed yesterday by FBI agents may be better vehicles both legally and in generating stories that might lead to pushback from Republicans. The first represents nine Jane and John Doe FBI personnel, fashions itself as a class action, and demands a jury trial; it has been assigned to Biden appointee Jia Cobb. It makes claims under the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment (and Fifth Amendment Privacy), and Privacy Act. It provides these details about how much the government spends to obtain the expertise of FBI agents.

13. FBI agents are chosen through a highly selective process, and are carefully screened for aptitude and trustworthiness.

14. FBI agents go through more than four months of intensive training at the FBI academy before beginning their duties, and attend numerous training sessions throughout their careers to adapt to new technologies and emerging threats.

15. Many FBI agents are multi-lingual and routinely interface with intelligence agencies from allied nations.

16. The training FBI agents receive is comprehensive, and in some instances, extremely expensive.

17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs assert that each agent of the FBI receives more than 3 million dollars-worth of training in a twenty (20) year career.

18. FBI agents also develop specific expertise from their assignments and field duties, much of which cannot be replicated solely by training.

The second represents seven Jane and John Doe FBI personnel, and the FBI Agent’s Association, which represents most active duty Agents; it has been assigned to the Trump appointee who presided over the Proud Boy leaders’ trial, Tim Kelly. Mark Zaid, a highly experienced lawyer in this field, is leading this suit. [Update: This case has been reassigned to Judge Cobb.]

This FBIAA suit makes two claims under the Privacy Act, a First Amendment, two Due Process claims, and this mandamus claim.

64. The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provide a statutory basis for jurisdiction in cases seeking relief in the nature of mandamus against federal officers, employees, and agencies, and they provide for an independent cause of action in the absence of any other available remedies.

65. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, constitute unlawful, intimidating, and threatening behavior towards Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs’ lawful actions of executing lawful search and arrest warrants and participating in lawful investigations of crimes committed by January 6 perpetrators.

66. Defendants do not have discretion to redefine the truth of January 6, 2021. Nor do Defendants have any discretion to recast the lawful actions taken by the FBI and the previous leaders within the Department of Justice as illegal, let alone any discretion to retaliate and disclose names.

67. Defendants have no discretion when it comes to ensuring the safety of the American people from extremist violence, let alone the safety of their own employees.

68. If no other remedy is available through which the unlawful termination orders may be rescinded, then Plaintiffs are entitled to relief in the nature of mandamus compelling Defendants to recognize Plaintiff to rescind the unlawful termination orders.

Both tell stories about Trump’s personal involvement in January 6 and describe a fear that lists of FBI Agents who worked on the January 6 cases will be used by those they investigated for retribution. The second also cites multiple cases of Jan6ers — including Enrique Tarrio, over whose prosecution Judge Kelly presided — promising retribution. [Update: As noted, this case has been reassigned to Judge Cobb.]

The second suit — the FBIAA one — substantiates its description of the events of January 6 far better, relying on opinions written by the judges who’ll preside over this case, as in these two citations to the DC Circuit opinion in the January 6 Committee’s lawsuit to access Archives documents.

13. The events of January 6, 2021, and the activities leading up to the violence that ensued on the U.S. Capitol on that day, have been well documented by courts in this circuit. Specifically, “[o]n January 6, 2021, a mob professing support for then-President Trump violently attacked the United States Capitol in an effort to prevent a Joint Session of Congress from certifying the electoral college votes designating Joseph R. Biden the 46th President of the United States. The rampage left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol. Then-Vice President Pence, Senators, and Representatives were all forced to halt their constitutional duties and flee the House and Senate chambers for safety.” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, at 15-16 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

[snip]

19. “The events of January 6, 2021 marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812. The building was desecrated, blood was shed, and several individuals lost their lives. Approximately 140 law enforcement officers were injured, and one officer who had been attacked died the next day. In the aftermath, workers labored to sweep up broken glass, wipe away blood, and clean feces off the walls. Portions of the building’s historic architecture were damaged or destroyed.” Thompson, 20 F.4th at 19.

That’s not the only way the FBIAA suit foregrounds the way judges have approved of the January 6 investigation. It also describes how everything happened with the involvement of judges and much of the legal process for that went through DC.

21. Investigative efforts were centralized out of the District of Columbia federal district (“DDC”). Functionally, this meant that FBI agents swore out arrest warrant affidavits in front of DDC magistrate judges. Upon receipt and review of the sworn affidavit, DDC magistrate judges approved the FBI’s arrest warrant applications and provided a signed, lawful arrest warrant to the arresting FBI agent or FBI task force officer (local law enforcement detailed to the FBI) for execution.

22. In some instances, individuals were arrested pursuant to a grand jury indictment. In these cases, FBI agents testified in front of a federal grand jury under Fed. R. Crim P. 6. If the grand jury found probable cause based on the evidence presented, a supervising court would then issue a lawful arrest warrant for execution

23. Many of the perpetrators of the January 6 riots fled Washington, D.C., immediately after the carnage. Because of this, the FBI had to coordinate efforts across the country in order to amass evidence. This frequently entailed applying for search warrants under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 in the district where the evidence was to be located. Again, the FBI applied for warrants via sworn affidavits presented to neutral and detached magistrate judges. In the context of search warrants for physical property (e.g., phones, clothes, stolen property), these lawful warrants were issued by a multitude of magistrate judges outside of DDC.

Every DC Judge has affirmed the import of these cases and the danger of the January 6 attack (though some have questioned the prosecution of so many trespassers). They’re all likely facing the same threats that these FBI agents are.

And they are being asked to preside over suits that pit the FBI agents who carried out this investigation against a DOJ led by Trump’s defense attorneys (including Pam Bondi, who was confirmed with the help of John Fetterman but no other Democrats yesterday).

The Mandamus requested by the FBIAA suit is a big ask — the Privacy Act violations in both suits are more likely to work. But the judges in question are likely to agree that, “Defendants do not have discretion to redefine the truth of January 6, 2021.”

According to Ken Dilanian, the FBI did turn over a list of the people involved in the January 6 investigation, though provided employee ID numbers in lieu of names.

Share this entry

Questions about the Proud Boys Superseding Indictment

/46 Comments/in , , /by

As noted here, DOJ charged Enrique Tarrio, along with the existing leadership conspiracy defendants and Dominic Pezzola, This is just the second superseding indictment against the key Proud Boys. And while it’s good that Tarrio was finally included and there are hints of interesting coordination, unlike with the Oath Keepers conspiracy, where each superseding indictment pointed to a relentless march in one direction, where the Proud Boy investigation is heading is far less clear to me.

For now, I’ll assume that’s simply because they’re holding their cards close.

Who is missing

My first question pertains to the non-inclusion of certain people in this indictment.

The first is William Pepe, who had been charged with Dominic Pezzola on the indictment that got consolidated with this one. He has either flipped (which would be especially noteworthy given that he is represented by John Pierce), or he’s just sitting out there in a conspiracy with himself.

Another person not included here is Ron Loerkhe. With Jimmy Haffner, he was instrumental in breaching the East side of the Capitol and seems to have provided military structure to the attack. The two of them remain charged only by complaint and in February DOJ got a 3 month continuance on their case.

A third is Aaron Whallon-Wolkind, a close associate of Zach Rehl’s who kibbitzed the attack from Philadelphia that day. He was raided back in October, seemingly suggesting he too might get charged. The indictment doesn’t charge him. It also leaves out some of his statements that were in earlier court filings.

Who is cooperating and who is not

Thus far, there is only one overt cooperator in the Proud Boy cases: Matthew Greene, the former co-defendant of Dominic Pezzola (who has been moved onto this indictment) and Pepe (who has disappeared).

There are three senior Proud Boys — named as Person 1, Person 2, and Person 3 — whose status remains unknown. All three had key leadership positions. And they presumably were involved in a video chat Tarrio scheduled for December 20 to discuss Person 3’s comment that, “most of the protest will be at the capital building given what’s going on inside.” Person 1 is almost certainly Jeremy Bertino, who lives in SC; a number of well-informed people believe Person 2 is Wolkind. [h/t CH]

There are other Proud Boys who could be included in this indictment but who aren’t. Dan “Milkshake” Scott got a continuance in February for 120 days; that filing stated that he and the government had not yet even started plea negotiations. Joe Biggs’ co-travelers on the Arthur Jackman indictment are all still charged individually, even though two of them were literally touching Biggs at key moments during the day; the government is only now sorting through conflicts posed by John Pierce’s representation of three of them that would have to precede any plea discussions. Zach Rehl’s co-travelers also remain charged by complaint (and just misdemeanors, too); in February the government got a continuance until April. Jeff Finley, who also with Rehl and the others for part of the day, got a continuance in February until late March, to allow for “continued discussions about the case.” [Corrected to note Finley is a PB] Gabriel Garcia, who seemed to be one of the most useful people reporting back so others could coordinate from outside the riot, seems headed for trial by himself.

Father Jeremy and son Jeffrey Grace remain in uncertain status, too. After dad got busted for paling around with Proud Boys last summer, they’ve been in flux but still just charged (not even with each other!) with trespassing. In February Jeffrey’s case got continued until St. Patricks Day and Jeremy’s got continued to April.

Meanwhile, on Friday, Ricky Willden set a change of plea hearing for April 7, pretty far in advance as these things go. Because he was charged directly with indictment, it’s not clear what the government knows, but he has ties to the Proud Boys and others.

The inconsistent references

In addition to the three Person-Numbers, this indictment refers to people by all manner of convention.

It names Stewart Rhodes in describing the meeting he had with Tarrio in a parking garage after Tarrio was released from jail on January 5.

Then there are multiple people described as “an individual whose identity is known to the grand jury,” the most interesting of whom is the person who shared a 9-page document about occupying key buildings in DC.

But that’s also the way the indictment describes Ryan Samsel before explaining that he, “put one arm around BIGGS’s shoulder and spoke to him” before be broke through the first barrier in front of the Capitol. On Friday, Jia Cobb (who took over the Samsel case from Tim Kelly when several people were added), ordered Samsel transported from the State Jail in Pennsylvania he had been in to a the Federal jail where DC jail residents had been moved to. Since Samsel has been charged, there’s no reason not to name him, just as Rhodes is named.

Where is Trump

As I noted earlier, there’s no mention of Enrique Tarrio’s visit to the White House in December. The White House claimed that was no big deal, and maybe it is.

But this indictment also leaves out all mention of Proud Boys, including Tarrio, playing on Trump’s Stand Back and Stand By comment.

Where is the obstruction charge?

In some ways, this indictment charges more aggressively than the earlier one. As other indictments have, it swaps the 18 USC 371 conspiracy (with a maximum sentence of 5 years) for an 18 USC 1512(k) conspiracy (with a maximum sentence of 20 years).

It charges all the men for the assaults originally charged just against Donohoe and Pezzola.

But it doesn’t include an obstruction charge for Tarrio, in spite of his explicit efforts to prevent others from cooperating, recordings of which were publicly released.

Where does this go from here?

I’ve been expecting and predicting this indictment since December 28. But for the life of me, I’m not sure where DOJ expects to go from here.

This indictment describes the numbers of people massed at several stages of the operation. 65 members on the Ministry of Self Defense (MOSD) Members Group. 90 people in the New MOSD members group created on January 4. Approximately 100 Proud Boys who met at the Washington Memorial the morning of the attack. Donohoe bragging at 12:00PM on January 6 that “WE ARE WITH 200-300 PBS,” just before they kicked off the riot.

Perhaps this framework is meant to provide a way to implicate all those others, 300 people who agreed, by signing up, that they were following a plan that DOJ has now shown (and that Matthew Greene’s cooperation was designed to show) was a plan to occupy buildings from the start.

But otherwise, this still feels really dispersed, and the prosecution team (which consists of three visible members for the leadership conspiracy, including Erik Kenerson, Jason McCullough, and Luke Jones, and about four detailees from other offices for satellite cases; a fourth prosecutor who had been on the core cases, Christopher Berridge, left immediately after Greene pled) has a far harder caseload than the significantly larger team on the Oath Keepers.

Perhaps something will really start to crystalize as some of these continuances end in April. Or perhaps DOJ will be serially prosecuting Proud Boys for the foreseeable future.

Share this entry