| Meredith Who
Threatened Pelosi Had Detention Appeal On
March 26 But It Was Under Seal
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Song
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
FEDERAL COURT,
March 26 – Eight days
after in the US Capitol among
other things Mark Leffingwell
stuck a Capitol Police officer
repeatedly with a closed fist
(and was freed), Cleveland
Grover Meredith who arrived a
day late in DC with guns in
his trailer was detained.
U.S.
District Court for the
District of Columbia
Magistrate Judge G. Michael
Harvey held the January 14
proceeding. Inner City Press
live tweeted it, here
and below.
Meredith has
since been indicted, including
for the threat(s) against
Nancy Pelosi, and the case
assigned to Judge Amy Berman
Jackson. Indictment online here.
On March
16, his appeal of detention
was set down for a hearing
before Judge Jackson on March
26. Inner City Press wrote,
"We will cover it" - but when
it called in for the
proceeding, there was nothing
but on-hold music, no
explanation. (Tweeted here).
Hours
after that, this explanation:
"MINUTE ORDER. On March 26,
2021, the Court held a hearing
on defendant's motion to
revoke the order of detention
[19]. The hearing was
conducted under seal given the
parties' stated intention to
refer to and rely upon
personal information related
to the defendant. But the
Court endeavored to organize
the hearing in a manner that
would facilitate unsealing as
much of it as possible, and it
will release the transcript of
the first portion of the
hearing that dealt with purely
legal arguments immediately.
It will determine whether any
other portions can be released
in consultation with the
parties. Additionally, any
supplemental submissions
regarding the motion [19] must
be submitted by April 5, 2021.
SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge
Amy Berman Jackson on
3/26/2021."
We'll have more on this. Watch
this site.
From
January 14: AUSA: Interstate
threats can constitute a crime
of violence.
Meredith's
defense lawyer: The three
cases they cite are
inapposite. The 2013 case is
no longer applicable after
Supreme Court decisions in
2019.
Judge Harvey: Let
me address the threshold
issue. I'll skip to the
conclusion. I'm going to rule
for the government. But I'd
like to make a record.
Judge: What the
defendant is charged will must
fall into one of the 3142(f)
factors. So the government has
to assert a crime of violence
under the Bail Reform Act.
It's defined as an offense
using the threat of physical
force... Section 875(c)
criminalizes interstate
communication of a threat of
violence or to kidnap.
[Citing cases on Westlaw,
privatization of legal
precedents]
Judge: Does the
threat to kidnap qualify as a
crime of violence? Some cases
say no, puzzling laymen and
lawyers alike...
Judge: A person
could be kidnapped through
trickery. The DC Circuit has
not addressed that. The 5th
has, & 8th Circuit in Roth
(2020). But this is not a
kidnapping case - it's a
threat case. Every threat case
involves violence. [Without
this, Meredith walks out on
bond]
Judge:
Kidnapping by trickery
scenario wouldn't happen in
the real world. I conclude
that the communicated threat
is a crime of violence, &
hence detention eligible. Now,
let's hear the government on
the four factors.
Defense: I still
don't have financial affidavit
Judge: File
it by close of business
tomorrow. Defense: I also have
another status conference at
3:45 pm. Judge says tell other
judge to wait. Now, the issue
of confidential health issues
arises. They want a break-out
room. [This could have been
done in writing] I
Now they
are arranging to take this
public proceeding private, or
sealed, apparently about
Meredith's medical issues that
militate for release. "You are
now in a break-out
session." "You are now
in the main session." Then,
"You are now in a break-out
session."
[While awaiting
return of judge and lawyers
(and Meredith?) note that
the memo for release, 10
pages, didn't have anything
redacted. This allegedly
confidential medical info
arguing for release could
have been put in it writing,
rather than this "break out"
...
Maybe it
goes without saying, but is
this shielded "break out"
session being transcribed by
a court reporter, so that
the sealing could be
meaningfully challenged? Or
one is supposed to reply on
the Magistrate Judge to
decide to unseal. But is
that reviewable? ]
Anyway, "you are
back in the main session."
Judge: OK
government, go right ahead.
AUSA: There are
no condition that will assure
the community's safety, and
return. He remained in DC and
made multiple threats,
including to Nancy Pelosi and
the DC mayor...
AUSA: This
misogynistic rhetoric... He
sent a text message he was
headed to DC for target
practice. He said he took
steps how to accomplish his
goal, the best way to assault
the city. He relished carnage.
He said the mayor was stupid
for calling it terrorism
AUSA: There
are text he wanted to stay a
day later to, quote, F*ck with
the Commies. He took steps to
see these threats through.
They are not protected by the
First Amendment. He told
officers he knew he had
crossed the line. He booked a
hotel room.
AUSA: He had an
automatic rifle used by the
Israeli military. He went so
far as to apply duct tape to
the magazine to more quickly
fire bullets. He arrived day
late -- Judge: That's the
irony, isn't it? Why wasn't he
hear on the 6th? AUSA: His car
broke down. Inner City Press
@innercitypress · 44m AUSA:
Even late, he tried to
accomplish his nihilistic
goals. This violent rhetoric,
it was fortunately discovered
before it went further. The
texts speak for themselves. He
attended Governor Kemp's rally
- ok, it is an open carry
state, but...
AUSA: He's
acknowledged drug use, on the
night of the offense. That
day, prior to this offense,
along the same time, at 3 pm
he assaults a resident of the
city, in a road rage issue.
[That is not to be found, at
least not yet, on the DC
Court's website]
AUSA: That just goes to show
the mental state that he was
in. The fourth factor, danger
to the community, our final
point is this is someone who
is under the spell of the
Q-Anon...
He won't follow
any conditions of release.
AUSA: He follows
that ideological conspiracy
theory movement.
Judge: Defense?
Defense: He's a father of two.
The text messages were in
jest, to friends, and not
posted online. An individual
said, Im' worried about you.
He replied, LOL I'm just
having fun
Defense: He'd
came to DC in November for a
rally. It was a lot of fun.
People were friendly. This
time, when they came to his
hotel room, he was friendly,
he answered questions without
an attorney present. He
is remorseful.
Defense: The
government's own evidence say
that as he got close to DC he
released he couldn't have guns
in his car, only in the
trailer. We should be able to
see what they are relying on.
We don't know anything about
the head-butting.
Defense: He
participates heavily in his
church, traveled to other
countries to build homes. He
had an amicable divorce. His
character reference [not in
the docket?] says he's no
troublemaker, just a patriot.
She states she would help with
a curfew & removing guns
Defense: He
was in his room, resting, when
the authorities found him. We
look at the community, in
terms of danger, where he
resides. He has no criminal
history. He has ties in the
North Carolina
community. Judge: Who is
the custodian? Defense: Ms
Jeffords [ph]
Defense: He
would refrain from the use of
alcohol. He could turn over
his passport. [Note that
this judge while releasing
Leffingwell has detained
Lonnie Coffman...]
Pre-Trial: There
are not conditions to release
him and keep community safe.
AUSA: He said
he'd like to use the
armor-piercing bullets to
shoot the mayor of DC. He was
texting about his weapons.
That is was in jest is
undercut by statements to FBI.
He was asked if social media
posts were for reaction or he
believe. He said, a bit of
both
AUSA: That he'd
have access to social media
could make worse the things
happening in his head..
especially for the next couple
of weeks.
Judge: I am going
to grant request to detain Mr.
Meredith.
Judge: We
get our fair share of these
threat cases in DC. But I
conclude this was a true
threat. I don't remember any
more concerning threats case.
Threats to the mayor and
Speaker of the House, of
running them over. You said,
"3 1/2 hours from target
practice"
Judge:
Often people make threats from
their basement. You took steps
to come here. He drove from
Colorado and brought with you
the means to make good on your
threats. The fire power in the
vehicle: 9mm, a telescopic
scope, 320 armor piercing
rounds...
Judge: The
threats were found on your
cell phone. Exchanged with
others the government could
call as witnesses. The guns
were in a truck behind your
vehicle. You admitted that.
It's a strong case, though
that'd be up to a jury. But
the factor weighs for
detention
Judge: I do not
see the point of sending you
back to Colorado or North
Carolina, even with GPS, since
you traveled to get here. GPS
is imperfect. We don't have
room for error when it comes
to you. I have no role in the
Superior Court case. Here, Jan
28 at 3 pm
Inner City
Press will cover that too,
watch this site.
There was this, from the US
response filing on the night
of January 13:
the Government
counsel filed a Memorandum in
Support of Detention (ECF 4)
on January 13, 2021, at 3:09
a.m., and was in receipt of
the defendant’s Memorandum in
Support of Relief (ECF 5) that
day at 12:09 p.m.
Argument The
defendant argues that the
interstate communication of a
threat to kidnap or injure
another person does not
qualify as a crime of
violence. This ignores the
analysis in United States v.
Santoro, 359 F.Supp. 3d 122
(D. Me. 2019), which
determined that such an
offense, as enumerated under
18 U.S.C. § 875(c), is a crime
of violence. The very threat
to injure another, it
reasoned, is a threatened use
of violent force. As is the
case here, the court noted
that “[t]he defendant has not
explained how one can threaten
to injure the person of
another without such a threat
implying the use of violent
force to do so.” Santoro, 359
F.Supp. 3d at 128; citing
United States v.
Chapman, 866 F.3d 129, 134-35
(3rd Cir. 2017) (where a
mailed threat to injure
someone under section 876(c)
amounted to a crime of
violence). Similarly, in
citing Sontoro, the same
decision was reached in United
States v. Christy, No.
3:18-CR-223, 2020 WL 2794617,
at *4 (M.D. Pa. May 29, 2020),
where the communication of
threats, including to the
President, “are clearly crimes
of violence under the Bail
Reform Act.” See 18 U.S.C.
3156(a)(4); United States v.
Choudhry, 941 F.Supp. 2d 347,
351 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
(communication of threat to
injure another is a crime of
violence for detention
purposes).
As in the case
where a threat issued to the
President of the United States
qualifies as a crime of
violence for purposes of
detention, the same conclusion
should follow here in the
communication of a threat
against a Congresswoman.
Nevertheless, the defendant
does pose a serious risk of
flight as well. He has no ties
to this community and has a
means of transportation.
Moreover, he has exhibited an
extreme degree of hostility
against governmental
functions, ostensibly
traveling to the District with
violent intentions at a time
that coincided with a hearing
to confirm the next President
of the United States." Watch
this site.
On January 8, by
contrast, Mark Leffingwell was
released to fly back to him
home in Seattle, no GPS
monitor, no bond.
Inner City Press
covered the case.
U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia
Magistrate Judge G. Michael
Harvey held the detention, or
really non-detention,
proceeding. Inner City Press
live tweeted it here:
(then, song here)
Now in Federal
Court in DC, hearing of
detained Mark Jefferson
LEFFINGWELL who "attempted to
push past me and other
officers. When he was deterred
from advancing further into
the building, LEFFINGWELL
punched me repeatedly with a
closed fist."
Assistant US
Attorney is *not* asking for
detention . He'll be allowed
to travel back home to
Seattle.
AUSA: We'll
be requesting strict
conditions... A stay-away from
DC... A curfew. Judge:
You say he works. What is it?
Lawyer: A packaging plant
called Panacea in Everett,
Washington. 30 to 40 hours a
week.
From the
complaint: "I was struck in
the helmet that I was wearing
and in the chest. Working with
other officers, I was able to
gain control over LEFFINGWELL,
who attempted to struggle
while being detained. I
transported LEFFINGWELL to US
Capitol Police HQ."
Judge Harvey:
Believe it or not, I have a
lot of these case. Pre-Trial
should find out about GPS in
the Districts where these
folks come from. I released
someone else yesterday.
Defense: GPS is not necessary.
He has 2 children.
Defense: He wants
to go to church on the
weekend. No need to be on a
GPS. We'll take a stay away.
He's never been to DC before.
Mrs. Leffingwell:
I'm an insurance agent. We
have a son, Noah, and
Nicholas. Judge: I am going to
release Mr. Leffingwell.
Judge: You can
turn in your guns to a police
station. You must call
pre-trial once a week and keep
working [at the packaging
plant.] Stay away from DC
except for court. Our
proceedings will be remote,
you probably won't have to
come.
Judge
Harvey: I don't see the point
of putting him on a curfew if
we're not going to do GPS.
Defense: He needs his ID to
fly back to Seattle.
AUSA: We have
nothing.
Defense: He
passed his phone to one of his
friends. I think they have his
license.
AUSA: A third
party? I can look for it.
Which agency.
Defense: He was
brought to 1-D-1, next to the
baseball field, then the cell
block.
Judge Harvey: I
am going to release Mr
Leffingwell. He must stay away
from Washington DC. [That
seems to be the main focus]
Judge Harvey:
You'll have to Zoom in to the
preliminary hearing... We've
got the phone number, no
worries, Mr. Leffingwell.
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
|
,
