03-27-21 -TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING Before Robin M. Meriweather JOHN EARLE SULLIVAN.txt

 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT  COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT  OF COLUMBIA
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )Criminal  Action 
)No. 2021-78 
vs. ) 
)
JOHN EARLE SULLIVAN , )February  16, 2021 
)4:01 p.m. 
Defendant . )Washington , D.C.
)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TRANSCRIPT  OF HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE  ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT  COURT MAGISTRATE  JUDGE 
(Parties appearing  via videoconference  and telephonically ) 
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE UNITED STATES:  CANDICE WONG
U.S. Attorney 's Office 
for the District  of Columbia
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington , DC 20530
(202) 252-7849
Email: candice.wong@usdoj.gov
FOR THE DEFENDANT :  STEVEN ROY KIERSH
5335 Wisconsin  Avenue, NW
Suite 440
Washington , DC 20015
(202) 347-0200
Email: skiersh@aol.com
ALSO PRESENT: MASHARIA  HOLMAN, Pretrial  Officer 
JOSHUA CAHOON, U.S. Probation
Court Reporter : Elizabeth  Saint-Loth, RPR, FCRR
Official  Court Reporter
Proceedings  reported  by machine shorthand , transcript
produced  by computer -aided transcription .Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 1 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 2
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT:  Okay.  I am ready.  
THE DEPUTY:  Okay.   
Criminal  Case No. 2021-78, the United States of 
America versus John Earle Sullivan .  
Candice Wong representing  the government ; 
Steven Kiersh representing  the defendant .  Shay Holman is 
the pretrial  services  officer.  The defendant  is 
participating  by video.  This case is called for a hearing 
to set conditions  of release.  
Also, Your Honor, just to let you know, Josh 
Cahoon is also connected  by video.  
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
I set this hearing to set release conditions  given 
that I know we had some concerns  at the last hearing with 
the proposed  conditions , specifically  with a proposal  to 
adopt the conditions  that were set by the arresting  
jurisdiction  which subjected  Mr. Sullivan  to an internet  
monitoring  system supervised  by pretrial  services  in Utah 
and -- pursuant  to which -- that court's release conditions  
where, in fact, Mr. Sullivan  was banned from certain 
websites  that discussed  the specific  nature which were not 
set forth in the Court's release order but, instead, were 
determined  by pretrial  based on its assessment  of sites that 
potentially  posed some risks.  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 2 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 3
I invited the parties that -- if I were going to 
be asked to invoke limits on use of websites , it would need 
to be presented  directly  to me for me to resolve in the 
release order; both for clarity of the record, because I 
know that there were some extra steps involved  in trying to 
review the revocation , but then, also, it was -- in my aim 
to finish within the time limits we had, it was probably  not 
explained  as fully on the record.  But, also, I wasn't aware 
that he -- of the restrictions  of the potential  First 
Amendment  implications ; and I wanted to make sure that 
anything  that I did set was specifically  justified  by the 
government  and, also, appropriately  tailored  to the concerns  
that we have to consider  under the Bail Reform Act when we 
are setting release conditions . 
Before we called the case, I was advised by the 
defense that they had filed a memorandum  concerning  release 
conditions  and that memorandum , which I reviewed  before we 
called the case, raised First Amendment  concerns, and it 
indicated  their objections  to the release conditions .  
I think the best way to proceed today, for clarity 
of the record, given the extent of time since our last 
hearing, would be for Ms. Wong to first state exactly what 
release conditions  the government  is requesting .  I will 
then let Mr. Kiersh indicate  exactly which of those 
conditions  the defense objects to.  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 3 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 4
If I have questions  for pretrial  services  about 
implementation  or logistics  of any of the conditions  that 
are being proposed  or any recommendations  from pretrial , I 
will hear from pretrial ; and that can be our pretrial  or 
Mr. Cahoon who has graciously  agreed to participate  from 
pretrial ; and then, hopefully , I will have enough 
information  in front of me to decide.  
I realize that the question  of Mr. Sullivan 's 
release has been pending for some period of time.  And I 
presume that, while it's been pending, he has been subject 
to all of the restrictions  by the arresting  jurisdiction  and 
that that Court can modify the order in the interim.  
So, Ms. Wong, if you could just go through one by 
one the conditions  you are requesting .  Thank you.  
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  
Candice Wong for the United States.  
Thank you, Your Honor.
I did ask at the last hearing for us to reimpose 
the conditions  in Utah, but Your Honor did ask us to confer 
with the parties.  I have spoken with Mr. Kiersh over the 
weekend, as well as Mr. Cahoon and Ms. Holman from pretrial , 
and have a modification  to what I was requesting  initially .  
I would say I do believe that pretrial  and the 
government  are in alignment  here.  We have, sort of, two 
possibilities  or alternative s with respect to the social Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 4 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 5
media that we would propose.  But, essentially , the 
conditions  would include the home detention , which is what 
was imposed in the arresting  jurisdiction ; that would 
include GPS monitoring , as was imposed in the arresting  
jurisdiction ; it would include computer  and internet  
monitoring ; and there are some miscellaneous  ones, Your 
Honor, involving  firearms.  
Do you want me to go through -- 
THE COURT:  Yes.  I think it would just be helpful 
to go through each one.  I am going to write it down and 
make sure I know which ones are in dispute. 
MS. WONG:  Let me just grab the order.  
THE COURT:  Take your time. 
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  
He was asked -- okay, Your Honor, starting  from 
the beginning , that:  The defendant  must maintain  or 
actively  seek verifiable  employment  and/or maintain  or 
commence  an educational  program as approved  by the pretrial  
officer.  
The Court, I believe, had added in there some 
language  about Insurgence  USA.  The government  here would 
request some more specific  language  than what we were 
requesting  there; it's that the defendant  must actively  seek 
or maintain  verifiable  employment  as approved  by the Court; 
can no longer do any work for Insurgence  USA to include any Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 5 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 6
promotion , affiliation  with, marketing  of, or communication  
through Insurgence  USA, InsurgenceUSA .com, or Insurgence  USA 
social media channels, accounts , or handles.  
All activity  relating  to Insurgence  USA is 
prohibited , except for the payment of taxes and maintenance  
of existing  bank accounts .  
THE COURT:  One minute.  Let me make sure I finish 
writing this down.  
All activity  regarding  Insurgence  USA is 
prohibited  except for paying taxes -- and doing what?  
MS. WONG:  Maintenance  of existing  bank accounts .  
And, Your Honor, that is the same language  that 
was delivered  from the bench but was not in the order; and 
so that was my attempt to provide it, the language  in the 
order. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  
MS. WONG:  Another restriction  is that the 
defendant  abide by restrictions  on his place of abode or 
travel which include maintaining  his residence  and not 
changing  without prior permission  from his supervision  
officer, not traveling  out of state without prior permission  
from his supervision  officer, not traveling  outside the 
United States without prior permission  from the Court.  
The next restriction  is:  Avoid all contact with 
those named persons who are considered  either alleged Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 6 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 7
victims, potential  witnesses , and/or codefendants .  
The next condition  is:  Report on a regular basis 
to the supervision  officer as directed .  The next condition  
is:  Not to possess a firearm, ammunition , destructive  
device, or any other dangerous  weapon.  
The next condition  was:  Do not use or unlawfully  
possess a narcotic  drug and other controlled  substance s 
unless prescribed .  
The next condition  was:  Undergo mental health 
evaluation  and complete  any recommended  treatment  as 
directed  by the supervision  officer.  I don't know if that's 
already been done.  
The next condition  is:  Surrender  any passport  to 
the Clerk of Court in the District  of Utah.  I believe that 
would have been done already, but Mr. Kiersh can confirm.  
The next condition  is:  Not obtain or apply for a 
passport .  
The next condition  is:  Home detention , as I 
mentioned .  After that is:  GPS location  monitoring , as I 
mentioned .  
The next condition  is:  The computer  and internet  
monitoring  program, as administered  by Mr. Cahoon's agency. 
And with respect to that, the government 's request would be 
that the Court prohibit  the defendant  from his use of 
Twitter and Facebook  and encrypted  social media platforms .  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 7 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 8
As one alternative  to that, Your Honor, something  
Ms. Holman has discussed  or considered  was not limiting  the 
platforms  but, instead, potentially  -- if Your Honor 
preferred  an approach  that encompassed  more platforms  but 
perhaps was more narrowly  tailored  to communication s to 
prohibit :  Inciting , promoting , or organizing  protests, 
riots, criminal  activity , armed conflict s, or violence  on 
any social media platform .  I think they both have different  
issues, and I am happy to discuss them; but those are two 
possibilities  adjusted  for social media.  
THE COURT:  With that alternative , it was 
prohibiting :  Inciting , promoting , or organizing  protests 
riots, or -- what else?  
MS. WONG:  Criminal  activity , armed conflict s, or 
violence . 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Were there any other conditions  you were asking 
for?  
MS. WONG:  I believe that's it, Your Honor.  
There is something  about appearing  in court which 
is one of the standard  ones. 
THE COURT:  Yes.  That has been the standard  form, 
appear in Court as required , and not commit any federal, 
state, or local crimes. 
MS. WONG:  Correct, Your Honor. Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 8 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 9
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Does pretrial  wish to be heard any further -- or 
wish to be heard on what Ms. Wong's recommending ?  
If there is something  you want to address later, 
you may.  But, just preemptively , was there anything  at this 
juncture ?  
MS. HOLMAN:  Your Honor, this is Ms. Holman with 
pretrial  services .  
Mr. Cahoon may want to confirm this, but there was 
also a condition  that said:  Submit person, residence , or 
office, or vehicle to search conducted  by a pretrial  officer 
at a reasonable  time upon reasonable  suspicion  of contraband  
or evidence  of a violation  of condition s of release. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  
THE DEPUTY:  Excuse me.  
MS. HOLMAN:  And I think that goes to the possible  
use of having the cell phones and other computer  equipment  
in the home, Your Honor.  
THE COURT:  Ms. Kay?  
THE DEPUTY:  Excuse me, just one moment.  
I just want to remind everyone  if you could mute 
your telephone  if you are not speaking , if you are able to 
do that.  Most everyone  is muted; but I don't know if people 
on the telephone  are able to mute if they are not speaking .  
That's a request by the court reporter .  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 9 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 10
Thank you.  
THE COURT:  Ms. Holman, it was:  Submit person, 
vehicle, or residence  to search at a reasonable  time upon 
grounds of suspected  violation ?  
MS. HOLMAN:  Yes, Your Honor; reasonable  suspicion  
of contraband  or evidence  of a violation  of a condition  of 
release.  
It was part of the original  conditions  of release.  
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Ms. Wong, are you requesting  that condition  as 
well to carry forward?  
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  I am just seeing it 
now; I didn't mean to omit that.  
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  
Okay.  Ms. Holman, was there anything  else from 
pretrial , or Mr. Cahoon?  
MS. HOLMAN:  Not from D.C. pretrial , Your Honor.  
THE COURT:  Mr. Cahoon is muted.  
Mr. Cahoon, could you just unmute yourself  and 
confirm at this juncture  whether there is anything  you 
wanted to add?  
MR. CAHOON:  I do not believe so, Your Honor.  
I was not aware though if I heard a mental health 
evaluation  had been recommended ; that was one of the 
conditions  that was originally  ordered.  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 10 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 11
THE COURT:  What type of evaluation , mental 
health?  
MR. CAHOON:  The specific  wording was:  Undergo a 
mental health evaluation , and complete  any recommended  
treatment  as directed  by the pretrial  officer; take any 
mental health medication  as prescribed ; and the defendant  
shall pay part or all of the cost of the program based upon 
ability to pay as determined  by the pretrial  officer.  
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Okay.  Mr. Kiersh, I take it from your memorandum  
that you object to GPS monitoring  and any restriction  on 
social media.  
Are there other of these proposed  conditions  that 
the defense objects to?  
MR. KIERSH:  Thank you, Your Honor.  
Again, Steven Kiersh appearing  remotely  on behalf 
of John Sullivan , and Mr. Sullivan  is present remotely .  
And we did submit, as the Court has noted, a 
detailed  written memorandum  concerning  our objections  based 
upon First Amendment  grounds.  
We strenuously  object to the representation s made 
today both by pretrial  services and Ms. Wong.  The 
recommendations  they're making are totally oppressive ; 
they're unconstitutional ; they're overbroad ; they're 
inconsistent  with the purposes  and designs of the statute Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 11 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 12
governing  pretrial  release.  I will take them one by one.  
Again, there are a few exceptions  that we don't 
object to but the vast majority , again, we strenuously  
object to; and we'll go through them.  
Number one, let's talk about no longer working for 
Insurgence  USA; this is how Mr. Sullivan  makes his living.  
We've submitted  receipts  to the Court, they're also provided  
to the government  -- demonstrating  that he has active 
contracts , legitimate  contracts , related to his work with 
Insurgence  USA.  There is no reason to limit this young 
man's employment .  He is actively  employed .  There is no 
connection  with the crimes that are charged in the 
indictment  with his activities  working with Insurgence  USA.  
No, he is not going to be committing  any criminal  
activity  because those, naturally , are prohibited .  But the 
legal purposes  of Insurgence  USA which, really, is just a 
vehicle for the transmission  of information  is a perfectly  
proper, perfectly  legal exercise  of his right to be 
gainfully  employed .  
The government  says, Well, you should look for 
employment ; that's fine, but he has employment .  He has 
employment  with Insurgence  USA.  Insurgence  USA is not 
charged as a defendant  in this case.  Mr. Sullivan  is not 
charged as being, in any way, in a conspiracy  with 
Insurgence  USA, of being a participant , as some sort of Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 12 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 13
ancillary  robot of Insurgence  USA; there is no connection  
there whatsoever .  
He was using his validly documented  work with 
Insurgence  USA to promote his activities .  This has nothing 
to do with the crimes that occurred  inside -- if they were 
crimes -- inside the United States Capitol; so, for those 
reasons, we'd say there is no connection .  And just to say, 
well, because, Mr. Sullivan , you're charged with a crime, 
we're going to deprive you of your gainful employment  that 
you have created, that you have managed, that you are the 
sole proprietor  of -- that there is no connection  whatsoever  
between that company and the crimes which you are charged -- 
is completely  beyond the scope of what the statute that 
we're working under requires.  
The social media limitations  are also incredibly  
oppressive , incredibly  overbroad , and serve no purpose other 
than to, basically , oppress Mr. Sullivan .  
We laid it out in detail in our detention  
memorandum .  Social media is how people -- particularly  in 
Mr. Sullivan 's age group -- communicate  with each other.  
So if the government  is saying, Well, we want to 
limit you.  We want to separate  you out from society; 
separate  you out from your friends; separate  you out from 
your family; separate  you out from your business  
association  -- associate s; separate  you out from your Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 13 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 14
ability to market your legitimate  business  by taking you 
down on social media; it's incredibly  oppressive .  And to 
say that he can't use Twitter, that he can't use Facebook  -- 
these are outrageous  requirements .  
And the government  says, well, as long as it 
doesn't prohibit  [sic] crimes -- excuse me -- that he's 
prohibited  from inciting  crimes.  He is not going to be 
inciting  crimes on Twitter or Facebook ; and if he is, the 
government  has a remedy.  But there is nothing to suggest 
that he has ever incited any criminal  activity  on Twitter or 
Facebook  or any other social media platform .  
His only use of these platforms  is a completely  
legitimate  use, which is typical of millions  and millions  of 
American s.  That's how people, again, most -- I would say 
predominantly  Mr. Sullivan 's generation , his age group -- 
that's how they communicate .  That's how he gets his news; 
that's how he gets his weather; that's how he gets his 
information .  That's how he keeps in touch with friends and 
family, especially  during the pandemic  when people are not 
out and about and commingling  with each other.  
They use these platforms  to meet with each other, 
to talk with each other, to exchange ideas.  Mr. Sullivan  is 
very much involved  in the exchanging  of ideas amongst his 
peers; this is how he does it.  
We cited Packingham  versus United States which is Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 14 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 15
the Supreme Court decision  in our pleadings  today, where 
Packingham  very clearly -- the Supreme Court made very clear 
that a fundamental  principle  is that all persons have access 
to places where they can speak and listen and then, after 
reflection , speak and listen once more.  
Today, one of the most important  places to 
exchange views is cyberspace , particularly  social media.  
And that opinion was written by Judge Kennedy prior to the 
pandemic ; it was written in 2017.  And that opinion hits it 
right on the head with respect to this case; that this is 
how this young man, who has not been convicted  of any 
criminal  offense, is able to communicate  and able to get 
information  legally and disseminate  information  legally.  
And to now say that, well, you are restricted  
because the government  has charged you in a case -- that we 
are now going to restrict  you from using these platforms  is 
a complete  -- I would submit to the Court, respectfully  -- a 
complete  violation  of his First Amendment  right to freedom 
of speech; and it's oppressive .  And, really, it serves no 
purpose.  It serves absolutely  no purpose other than to cut 
this young man off from legitimate  access to social media 
platforms .  
I also -- I think it's incredible  that the 
government  is asking for a mental health evaluation  and that 
Mr. Sullivan  should then pay for any type of subsequent  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 15 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 16
treatment .  What is the basis for that?  There is absolutely  
no basis; this man is not mentally  ill.  The charges with 
which he is charged have nothing to do with his mental 
acuity.  This is not a situation  where there is some concern 
about whether the person understands  the nature of the 
proceedings .  
He has a complete  and very knowledgeable  
understanding  of the nature of the proceedings , of the 
nature of his conduct, of his surroundings .  He is perfectly  
able to communicate  with me as his counsel, to assist in the 
formulation  of his defense.  And to come in with no basis -- 
no medical records, no medical history, no reports from 
physicians  saying, oh, Mr. Sullivan , you're charged with a 
criminal  offense so we want you to undergo a mental health 
evaluation  is a complete  intrusion  on his rights to privacy.  
It's completely  inappropriate ; and we would strenuously  
object to that.  
I want to get to the issue of the searching of his 
car and his home.  We obviously  completely  and strenuously  
object to that.  
Mr. Sullivan  -- because he has been charged with a 
criminal  offense -- doesn't give up his Fourth Amendment  
right to privacy.  So the government  is coming in and 
saying, well, if we believe -- based on what?  What is the 
basis for their belief?  Is this just some fanciful  belief?  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 16 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 17
Something  -- some idea that just floated into their heads?  
If we believe that Mr. Sullivan , without any foundation  -- 
believe that he may have been involved  in some criminal  
activity , we reserve the right to go search his car and 
search his house.  That, I submit to the Court, is 
incredible  and intrusive  violation  and an intrusion  on 
Mr. Sullivan 's Fourth Amendment  constitutional  rights.  
If the government  believes  that there is some 
proceeds  of a crime or fruits of a crime in either 
Mr. Sullivan 's car or his house, the United States then can 
go to a federal magistrate , in a completely  separate  matter 
from this, and try to obtain a warrant based upon probable  
cause.  But, certainly , what they can't do is say:  Well, 
we're going to bypass the ordinary  regulations ; we're going 
to bypass the way we ordinarily  do things; we're going to 
bypass the Fourth Amendment , and just go and search his car 
and his home -- absolutely , undeniably  a violation  of Fourth 
Amendment  rights.  And Mr. Sullivan  is not waiving -- as any 
part of these proceedings , he is not waiving First Amendment  
rights; he is not waiving Fourth Amendment  rights; he is not 
waiving any constitutional  rights.  
The government  says:  Well, we want to impose 
restrictions  that Mr. Sullivan  avoid all contact with 
victims, witnesses , or codefendants .  Well -- so what the 
government  is then saying is that:  Well, Mr. Sullivan , Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 17 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 18
because you have been charged in this offense, we're saying 
you should not be allowed to participate  in building  a 
defense; and, if you do, you are violating  your conditions  
of pretrial  release.  Again, that involves  a restriction  on 
his Sixth Amendment  right to the effective  assistance  of 
counsel.  Now we have got three constitutional  provision s 
that the government  is seeking to step on, to trounce, 
because Mr. Sullivan  has been charged as -- in a crime.  
Number one, with respect to codefendants , neither 
Mr. Sullivan  nor I can go to the codefendants  because they 
have counsel.  So the only thing we can do is ask counsel if 
we can speak to the particular  person.  And, certainly , 
we'll abide by our professional  rules and responsibilities  
in regard to contacting  codefendants .  
But to say that Mr. Sullivan  cannot interact  with 
victims or witnesses  is just prohibitive ; they can't do 
that.  You can't say that you can't go with your lawyer, for 
instance , and go and interview  a witness, or go and 
interview  a victim.  And what constitutes  -- under what 
umbrella  are these people being put under that they are 
victims or witnesses ?  
There are hundreds  of people involved .  There are 
thousands  of people involved .  It would undertake  a massive 
investigation  to try to learn who witnesses  may be, who 
victims may be; and we are certainly  going to try to contact Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 18 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 19
them and speak with them.  But to say that Mr. Sullivan  
can't be involved  in that is clearly an intrusion .  
I can't count the number of cases that I have been 
involved  with over the years where I have interviewed  
victims or witnesses  to crimes; and I have had my client -- 
if that person was not incarcerated  -- with me in the vast 
majority  of those times.  I want my client to hear what that 
person has to say personally .  I don't want to just take 
notes and bring them back to my client.  
I want my client to understand  what this person 
has to say about their knowledge  of the event or my client's 
not being a participant  in the event; and that information  
is essential  because my client has to make decisions  about 
how to proceed in building  his defense.  So, again, we have 
got First Amendment , Fourth Amendment , and now a Sixth 
Amendment  violation .  
We have no objection  to his reporting  to his 
supervision  officer.  Mr. Sullivan  has already turned in his 
firearms; and he is not going to acquire any additional  
firearms.  
The government  says, well, no use of narcotics .  
Well, he doesn't use narcotics .  And if it's illegal, it's 
illegal; and he is not going to acquire or obtain or use 
anything  that's illegal.  He may be taking -- I am not quite 
sure if he takes prescription  medication ; but, obviously , Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 19 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 20
there is no prohibition  against prescription  medication .  
He's already surrendered  his passport .  
I do -- I want to get to the ankle monitoring .  
Well, let me go back to the computer  monitoring 
and the program.  Every case that I am aware of with respect 
to the computer  monitoring  program involves  sex offenses 
because that's the vehicle by which, typically , the people 
who are charged with sex offenses gain access to the victims 
of their alleged sex crimes.  This is not a sex crime case; 
this has nothing to do with a sex crime case.  
The monitoring  -- the government  hasn't laid out 
any reason -- any specific  articulable  reason that would 
justify entry into an internet  monitoring  program.  There is 
nothing in this case -- and I know I have already said this, 
but I will just repeat it -- to suggest that the use of his 
computer , the use of the internet  is what Mr. Sullivan  
relied on for the activity  that brings him before this 
Court.
So I believe that I have covered most of the 
argument s and most of the grounds and most of the conditions  
that the government  is asserting .  We would incorporate  the 
memorandum  that we filed yesterday  into our argument s.  And 
we certainly  would be amenable  to answering  any questions  
the Court may have.  
One final thing.  There may be an issue as to Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 20 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 21
residency , where Mr. -- not "residency " with respect to the 
state of Utah, but the particular  place of residency  with 
respect to Mr. Sullivan .  But we'd just ask the Court for a 
break so I can confirm some information  related to that.  
THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  
MS. HOLMAN:  Your Honor, this is Ms. Holman. 
THE COURT:  You wanted a breakout room?  
Mr. Kiersh, I am not sure why I didn't -- 
something  on my computer  buzzed.  I didn't hear the last 
thing you said. 
MR. KIERSH:  I said that there may be an issue 
with respect to Mr. Sullivan 's place of residence .  He will 
remain in Utah, but I just need a breakout for 30 seconds 
just to confirm some information . 
THE COURT:  I see.  With Mr. Sullivan ?  
MR. KIERSH:  Yes, and his father who is also on 
the line. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  And then, Ms. Holman, did you 
have something  that you wanted to ask or raise before I let 
Mr. Kiersh confer?  
MS. HOLMAN:  Yes, Your Honor.  
Mr. Cahoon can confirm this.  But in reference  to 
the firearm, I don't believe it was surrendered  to the 
District  of Utah.  I believe it was given to his father.  
But Mr. Cahoon can confirm that. Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 21 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 22
MR. CAHOON:  Your Honor, this is Josh Cahoon.  
That was the information  I was provided  by the 
defendant .  He indicated  he had sold the firearm to his 
father and had a bill of sale to prove this transaction  
occurred .
MR. KIERSH:  I can confirm that information , Your 
Honor.  
THE COURT:  And does Mr. Sullivan  reside with his 
father?  
MR. KIERSH:  No.  He does not presently  reside 
with his father; but he is going to have to change his 
address at the end of this month.  What we are trying to 
make a final determination  is whether or not he can reside 
with his parents who live about an hour away from Salt Lake 
City. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Ms. Kay, can you put Mr. Kiersh 
and Mr. Sullivan  in a breakout room so they can briefly 
confer?  
THE DEPUTY:  Yes, Your Honor.  Just one moment.  
(Whereupon , Mr. Kiersh and the defendant  confer.) 
THE DEPUTY:  I closed the room.  So Mr. Sull -- 
okay.  Mr. Sullivan  and Mr. Kiersh are back.  
MR. KIERSH:  Thank you, Ms. Kay.  
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Mr. Kiersh. Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 22 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 23
MR. KIERSH:  Yes, Your Honor.  
Just a couple of things.  
I may have not fully discussed  the ankle 
monitoring  but, again, Mr. Sullivan  has -- there is really 
no issue of flight in this case.  I mean, no one is 
suggesting  that Mr. Sullivan  is not going to appear at every 
court appearance  that he is required  to appear before.  
He has faithfully  appeared  in every Utah state 
court proceeding .  He has faithfully  appeared  in every Utah 
federal court proceeding ; and he has faithful ly and timely 
appeared  in every court proceeding  in the United States 
District  Court for the District  of Columbia  before Your 
Honor. 
He doesn't have a passport .  He doesn't have 
resources  to go anywhere.  He certainly  will abide by the 
condition  that if he is going to travel out of state he will 
first seek prior approval .  But there is no reason in the 
world to monitor him, we would submit, on the ankle bracelet  
because there is nothing to suggest that he is not in full 
compliance  with his responsibilities  with respect to 
appearing  in Court; there is no risk of flight whatsoever .  
So we would submit and incorporate  by reference  our 
arguments  on the ankle monitoring . 
With respect to Mr. Sullivan 's housing, he is 
going to be -- have to leave his premises that he currently  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 23 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 24
resides in at the end of February .  He is seeking to find 
another residence  in the Salt Lake City area to move into.  
But as a backup, if he can't secure an apartment  in Salt 
Lake City, he will reside with his parents.  And I believe 
that Jack Sullivan , his father, can make any representation s 
or answer any questions  the Court has regarding  his 
permission  to allow his son to reside in his house.  And 
that if Mr. Sullivan  is able -- Mr. John Sullivan  is able to 
acquire a new residence , we will certainly  notify pretrial  
of the address and any other means of communication  with 
respect to the new residence .  
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Ms. Wong, could you -- with respect -- first, with 
respect to Insurgence  USA, what is the government 's proffer 
for why future work of any kind with Insurgence  USA would 
pose a danger to the community ? 
MS. WONG:  Sure, Your Honor.  
And I apologize  if you had expected  this earlier.  
I thought I was just summarizing  the request of conditions ; 
but I am prepared  to address at length and proffer why the 
government  is seeking these restrictions . 
THE COURT:  Okay.   
MS. WONG:  If I could just briefly mention two of 
the things that Mr. Kiersh said because -- I think he's just 
misreading  what the conditions  actually  say.  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 24 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 25
One is -- on the mental health evaluation , I 
believe that just says:  Undergo a mental health evaluation  
and complete  any recommended  treatment  as directed  by your 
supervision  officer.  That's no different  from the standard  
condition  we see all the time where you undergo mental 
health treatment  as needed; so I think that's at the 
discretion  of the supervision  officer if that's required  or 
not. 
As to the search, Mr. Kiersh asked what that would 
be based on.  The specific  language  in the condition  is:  
Submit person, residence , office, or vehicle to a search 
conducted  by the supervision  officer at a reasonable  time, 
in a reasonable  manner, based upon reasonable  suspicion  of 
contraband  or evidence  of a violation  of a condition  of 
release.  So that is the standard :  Reasonable  suspicion  of 
contraband  or evidence  of a violation .  I just wanted to 
address those two briefly.
THE COURT:  Thank you, Ms. Wong.  
Why don't you -- instead of -- if you could begin 
with Insurgence  USA, and then you can address any others.  
I did initially  want you to just list them because I wanted 
to make sure we were all working from the same page.  But 
certainly  there has been an extensive  and clear objection  
from the defense.  So if you could justify any of those 
release conditions  -- Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 25 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 26
MS. WONG:  Certainly , Your Honor. 
Now, the government  would note that these are 
not conditions  -- the Insurgence  USA condition  is not a 
condition  we would take lightly.  
But the reason the magistrate  imposed these 
restriction s was for a reason; and that's because Insurgence  
USA, which is Mr. Sullivan 's own LLC, headquartered  in his 
own address, is the vehicle through which he is engaged in 
the underlying  activities .  
The representation  that there is quote-unquote no 
connection  between the activity  with which he has been 
charged, both in Utah and in Washington , D.C., is unfounded , 
Your Honor.  
Insurgence  USA is absolutely  the instrumentality  
through which Mr. Sullivan  committed  the relevant  act.  
Now, the defendant  has now -- I would, first of 
all, note that the Insurgence  USA restriction  was consented 
to as appropriate  by Mr. Sullivan 's own counsel in Utah.  
And the requirement  that he get new employment  reflects , as 
the defense counsel stated, he was willing to do as believed 
was appropriate .  Nevertheless , that is water under the 
bridge.  
I would note here the defendant  has been 
criminally  charged twice in two pending cases with criminal  
rioting activity  that he would have not been on the scene Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 26 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 27
for but for Insurgence  USA. 
THE COURT:  So let me just interject  here 
because I find -- I am going to go back and look at it 
before I make any decisions  because I may be wrong.  
I would like you to be clear in distinguishing  
between whether Insurgence  USA is recommending  that people 
attend protests and then some sort of violence  or possession  
of weapons -- or whatever  illegally occurs at the protest, 
or whether Insurgence  USA is specifically  asking people to 
do something  illegal, because there is a distinction . 
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  
I think I can parse this out in the following  way:  
Sometimes  what Insurgence  does is directly  organize  the 
events which have been violent.  So one example is the Utah 
protest in Provo which Insurgence  and Mr. Sullivan  organized  
and promoted  where a civilian  was shot, and where he has 
been charged with felony rioting; that's the criminal  
mischief .
Sometimes  Insurgence  is Mr. Sullivan 's reason for 
being there and for his criminal  participation  in the riots; 
that was the case on January 6th.  Insurgence  USA did not 
organize  that demonstration ; but he was there on behalf of 
Insurgence  USA, on behalf of the mission -- of what he deem 
s is the mission of his group.  
So he has stated that he has a need to document  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 27 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 28
these riots as part of what is Insurgence  USA's mission.  In 
fact, he claims to seriously  disagree  with the ideology  of 
some of these rioters.  But he justifies  his own statements  
on scene to law enforcement  agents to statements  including  
having a knife; that we should burn it down; that we should 
haul that MF'er [sic] out -- referring  to an officer.  
He justified  his rhetoric  while illegally  inside 
the Capitol on grounds that he was part of this undercover  
work, or this is how he -- this is how he ensures that he 
gets the coverage  he needs and that he is not suffering  
repercussions  for that; it is how he quote-unquote needs to 
relate to the people that he believes  he's depicting .  
Third, Your Honor, Insurgence  positions  itself as 
a, sort of, expert resource  for rioters.  Now, Mr. Kiersh -- 
this does bleed into the social media because I would say 
the defendant  has many social media accounts ; some of which 
are under the Insurgence  handles, but that he retweets under 
other handles; or that -- and they are all sort of -- they 
all, kind of, put out the same content and retweet each 
other sometimes .  But obviously , even on the defendant 's 
personal  channels, he touts himself as the founder of 
Insurgence  USA.  He has videos on his personal  YouTube that 
are called:  Insurgence  USA firearms training .  So they do 
all bleed together .  
But it's remarkable  Mr. Kiersh noted that his Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 28 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 29
social media to be -- must be typical of what millions  of 
American s his age engage in.  The government  would submit 
there is nothing typical about proffering  postings, YouTube 
postings, with tutorial s on how to make a Molotov cocktail ; 
that is the defendant 's own account; that is his own content 
that he posts.  
There is nothing typical about crowdsourcing  
funding for tactical  gear to arm rioters to protect them 
against military  officers  that are depicted  on Facebook  in a 
photograph .  There is nothing typical about this kind of 
activity .  
Your Honor, the defendant  has a video that he 
posted -- one of many -- where he posts a quote-unquote -- 
this is from December  2020:  A full guide on how to keep 
yourself  safe during protests and direct action.  This is 
part and parcel of what I call the Insurgence  USA mission of 
serving as an expert resource  for rioters.  On it, he 
provides  instructions  to viewers on what clothing  and type 
of gear to bring to protests, to discuss the importance  of 
concealing logos on clothing  and bags and tattoos to avoid 
being identified .  He shows how you need a handgun -- he has 
a 9mm handgun, a rifle; and he says:  If you need a less 
lethal option, you choose a black retractable  tactical  
knife.
He encourage s defendants  -- he encourage s viewers Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 29 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 30
to bring those items -- quote-unquote, again, this is how to 
keep yourself  safe during protests in direct actions.  He 
notes in that video, when speaking  about his 9mm handgun, 
when speaking  about what happened  today in Washington  -- 
this is in December  2020 -- I almost had to shoot an MF'er 
and continued  to say that:  If someone punched him or 
sprayed him with pepper spray he would put a bullet in their 
eye.  He refers to that rifle as a chud killer.  My 
understanding  is "chud" is often used by persons as a 
derogatory  term for Trump supporters .  
Beyond that, Your Honor -- so Insurgence 's entire 
mission, as the defendant  has styled it as alternately  
calling it a journalist  organization  or an activist  group.  
But under the guise of journalism  or activism  he has engaged 
in and incited violent activity , including  the kind of 
destructive  activity  we saw on January 6th.  
He has used Insurgence 's purported  mission not 
just for financial  incentives .  In his videos he's widely 
and frequently  heard saying that -- calling for donations  to 
help me keep making more videos like this to help us fight 
in the revolution , and how he presumably  funds his trips, 
which are frequent , to different  protests -- just in the 
last six months -- across the country; not just protest s 
but, of course, violent riots.  Because he claims to be 
there to live stream these events -- in his view, his job, Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 30 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 31
his work, his Insurgence  mission is to put his body on the 
line to bring people the best documentation  of history; that 
is what the Insurgence  USA mission is in the defendant 's own 
words and according  to his own public statements .  
So, Your Honor, it was appropriate  for the 
District  of Utah to hold that employment  in Insurgence  is 
not authorized  for this reason.  Insurgence  is absolutely  
the vehicle through which he both participated  -- not just 
promoted  and organized  to protest in Utah, but the reason he 
was here in Washington , D.C., and the reason we know that 
this kind of activity  will continue  to occur, and it's the 
reason he excuses his own conduct on January 6th; his own 
incitement  and instigating  statements  that he is on videos 
stating.  There is a direct message between Insurgence  USA 
and what happened  both in this case and his serially  similar 
case in Utah.  
Now, the government  is not aware of this being any 
kind of formal employment  arrangement .  As we noted, this is 
his own group.  There is no known group rosters or known 
members.  So the government 's submission  is that with clear 
language  we can maintain that reasonable  restriction  that 
was imposed by the magistrate  judge in Utah that -- but with 
more explicit  spelling  out of the kinds of provision s or 
conditions  that led in part to the defendant 's violation  
here.Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 31 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 32
Now, Your Honor, I can go into social media; but 
do you have any other questions  about Insurgence ?  
THE COURT:  Yes.  Do you have any information  
suggesting  that Insurgence  USA would typically encourage  
people to go to the Capitol on January 6?  
MS. WONG:  Your Honor, the -- so we're hamstrung  
in that the defendant  has actually  had almost all of his 
Twitter and Facebook  accounts  suspended  presumably  because 
of violations  of the terms of service.  So I do have some 
screenshots ; I do not have anything  from that time.  
What I do have, Your Honor, is late December  2020 
the defendant  encouraged  rioting; he said:  Riots are meant 
to bring change to purge the world with fire.  
On December  27th he stated that an armed 
revolution  is the only way to bring about change 
effectively .  He has a picture of him at some other protest 
and says:  I can tell you the dynamics  completely  shift when 
shots will be fired back.  And this is a picture from the 
Utah state capital.  
So, Your Honor, the defendant  has spoken freely 
about how he organized  on social media to infiltrate , in his 
view, the organizers  of the riots on January 6th.  He said 
that in an interview  with law enforcement  agents, that he -- 
that is how he learned about protests; that he goes on 
various social media platforms  including  -- I think he just Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 32 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 33
gave an interview  to The New Yorker where he describes  
joining activist  group chats on Signal and Telegram  to 
collaborate  with the community  to stay abreast of where the 
next big riot is likely to break out.  So he certainly  warns 
about it.  He has spoken openly, for instance , on the 
Infowars  interview  that Your Honor is familiar  with, about 
how he had been hearing about it, how he knew to be in 
Washington , D.C., because of social media activity .
This defendant  has certainly  also used his own 
social media platform  to post his footage, including  the 
images and the footage of himself engaging  in the illegal 
activity  on January 6th.  
As Your Honor notes, the government  would submit 
that his own footage does document  his actions on 
January 6th:  His illegal entry, his obstruction  of the 
official  proceedings , and the civil disorder  that he has 
been charged with.  So that is all broadcast widely on his 
social media channel.  
As I noted, again, one of the challenges  here is 
that the defendant  is a very prolific  user on social media.  
He has many, many accounts  on each individual  platform .  He 
does widely use a large number of them and they retweet each 
other.  A Facebook  post will push out the same thing that's 
on his Twitter.  It's the Insurgence  -- there is an 
Insurgence  USA Facebook , as well as an Insurgence  USA Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 33 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 34
Twitter.  But the content -- there is an Insurgence  USA 
YouTube.  The content seems to overlap extensively  with the 
same accounts  that he has under different  handles that may 
not include the word "Insurgence ."  But, yes, those -- as I 
have noted, Your Honor, those -- the January 6th footage is 
currently  still available  on YouTube which is one of the 
accounts  of his that has not been taken down as far as I 
know.  
Your Honor, if I can say just a little bit more 
about the defendant 's use of social media.  As I have noted, 
he does promote protests and violence  and armed 
confrontations  through social media.  He does use social 
media to organize  and set up these demonstration s.  He 
learns of them, scouts them out through his social media.  
He goes there funded in part by his social media channels 
for outreach  to get live footage -- live streamed  footage 
and YouTube footage so that he can put that out through 
those channels; and he has absolutely  engaged and promoted  
himself in illegal activity  encouraging  violence .  So I 
would note the December  29th video tutorial  on Molotov 
cocktails .  I would note the December  2020 guide 
involving  -- you know, urging protesters  on how to disguise , 
avoid identification , and bring weapons to any protests 
including  to use if you are pepper sprayed.  
And the government  has information  about events in Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 34 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 35
L.A. involving  the vandalism  of a federal building  in 
September  2020 where a walk-in complain ant to the FBI in 
Salt Lake City provided  Discord chats from Mr. Sullivan  from 
days before.  Mr. Sullivan  was, according  to Twitter, in Los 
Angeles at the time and there was damage to a federal 
building  and vandalism  causing property  damage to the 
structure , as well as some spray painting of ACAB and FTP -- 
which I understand  stands for:  All Cops Are Bastards , and 
Fuck the Police.  When guards gave chase, the suspects fled 
to an awaiting vehicle.  
What the walk-in complainant  said is that they had 
participated  in a chat with Mr. Sullivan  who was identified  
as John Sullivan  -- Activist  John, Salt Lake City, Utah; and 
that screen-shotted chat provided  -- discussed  associates  
being decoys at the sheriff's department  in West Los 
Angeles; identified  that federal building ; gave parking and 
paint smearing  instructions ; and provided  a map with an X 
marked on that federal building .  So these were Discord 
communication s on one of those platforms  in September  2020.  
The government  would also note that the defendant  
has -- and I mentioned  this last week -- in August posted 
videos of himself on YouTube in Washington , D.C., at a 
microphone  where he is inciting  the crowd stating:  We about 
to burn the shit down.  We got to rip Trump out of office.  
And saying:  Pull him out of that shit.  We aren't waiting Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 35 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 36
til the next election .  We about to go get that MF'er.  
Leading the crowd in a chant that:  It's time for a 
revolution . 
Your Honor, in this case, the defendant 's social 
media presence  is not -- it does not read like a typical 
20-something -year-old social media person.  It's not about 
the weather; it's not about communicating  with friends.  
It is hundreds  of videos like this, Your Honor.  
It includes  -- even where not celebrating  outright illegal 
activities , certainly  celebrating  and encouraging  violence .  
And there are legions of examples.  Just two months ago, one 
of the videos on YouTube says -- it's titled:  What a 
savage, running up on the cops like that with an AK-47.  
There is a video.  Another one from two months ago:  The 
black bloc in paris has a projectile  launcher, emoji.  
Anyone have a link?  Take my money.  
Another one from two months ago:  Outstanding  job 
protesters  in Paris, keep making them notice and burn it 
all.  From December  31st, his tweet:  I am already ready to 
go Nazi hunting in 2021; are you?  
Your Honor, this is a situation  where it is clear 
that the lion's share -- if not the entirety  -- of what the 
defendant  does on his very active social media channels is 
inextricably  tied to Insurgence  USA, and what he does 
through Insurgence  USA is inextricably  tied to exactly the Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 36 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 37
kind of activity  that is why he stands here today.  
Now, Mr. Kiersh noted that the defendant  has been 
absolutely  compliant .  The government  will just note that 
the reason we were convened  last week was because the 
defendant  had been documented  with multiple  violations  of 
his release conditions .  This is not an example of a 
defendant  who has been absolutely  compliant  to date. 
The government  does have a concern that with 
unfettered  access to communicate  with confederates  and 
continues  to incite violence  and use armed conflict  and 
illegal activity , Your Honor, that that would not be an 
acceptable  risk here.  
Given what the defendant  has engaged in in his two 
pending cases, the government  thinks that it would be a 
reasonable  restriction  here not to, again, espouse the -- I 
believe there were 13 platforms  that were specified  in the 
arresting  jurisdiction  but to limit it to the two in which 
we know are probably  the most widely available , Facebook  and 
Twitter, where he does have multiple  handles, as I noted, 
where many of those tweets and posts and crowdsourcing , or 
his -- all of those that I have mentioned  do arise on 
Twitter and Facebook .  
So as one option to more carefully  circumscribe  
the number of platforms , the government  submits that that is 
a more reasonable  restriction  and certainly  would allow Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 37 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 38
him -- would not prohibit  him from seeking out employment , 
connect with family or be informed  on current events.  
The government  would also note this is not an 
internet  ban.  He is allowed to access the internet  under 
appropriate  supervision .  What we are talking about here is 
social media platforms .  And what we are talking about among 
that universe  is really just two social media platforms ; two 
in which he has spoken openly about being blocked; using 
Lively [sic], and having to use a VPN to see if he can 
create new accounts  to get into; he's publicly  spoken about 
that.  The two of which he has, presumably , one of his 
largest following s given his widespread  use of this 
platform .
Does Your Honor have any questions ?  
THE COURT:  No.  Not about social media or 
Insurgence .
Could you speak to GPS, why an ankle bracelet  is 
necessary , given Mr. Sullivan 's appearance  of -- appearance  
in court as required  in the other jurisdiction s, as his 
counsel represented ; and he certainly  has appeared  for 
numerous  hearings in the District . 
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  
The government  submits that GPS location  
monitoring  is appropriate  because this is a defendant  who we 
know has traveled  prolifically , just in the last six months, Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 38 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 39
precisely  to chase these riots and this type of riot 
activity .  As law enforcement  is aware, he has traveled  and 
crisscrossed  the country to violent riots in Portland , Los 
Angeles -- I just mentioned  the Discord events; in 
Washington , D.C., multiple  times; Seattle; Richmond ; Utah.  
Again, this is an organization  that he created in 
mid-2020; this is all really in the last six months.  The 
defendant  is a prolific  traveler precisely  to attend this 
kind of gathering .  
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Did you want to address any of the other 
objections  the defense made, such as contact with witnesses  
and victims, being in violation  of rights under the Sixth 
Amendment  or the search of his residence ?  
I guess you did briefly touch on the search. 
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  
As to the search, my answer was just that that 
does incorporate  the reasonable  suspicion  standard  and helps 
effectuate  the conditions  of release as this Court said.  
As to the language  again about -- as I mentioned , 
the condition  is:  Avoid all conflict  with named persons -- 
so I don't believe he has any codefendants .  I don't believe 
there are any named victims or witnesses  in this case.  So I 
was just reading what is typically  used as form conditions ; 
but it does not appear that there were any such individuals  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 39 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 40
that were named. 
And if I can just say one final thing, Your Honor.  
As to the First Amendment  issues that have been raised, 
Packingham  involved  a question  about the level of scrutiny  
that applies with respect to a law and whether or not that 
law as a whole would apply when applied to an entire state, 
an entire category  of felons, including  individuals  that had 
no longer any contact with the criminal  justice system; that 
certainly  left open the possibility  and, indeed, the 
likelihood  that as applied in an individual  case, as all 
restrictions  pending trial, must be -- can be justified  by 
an individual .  
Here it's generally  the case that an internet  
ban -- and this is not an internet  ban yet; but, certainly , 
you do see a greater prevalence  of internet -type 
restrictions  in cases that involve sex offender s.  
The government  would note that this is not a 
typical case and this is not a typical defendant .  Here it 
is clear that the activity  he's engaged in he's engaging  in 
because and for his social media channels and his social 
media presence .  
And here, you know, if the question  is whether as 
to social media an individual  is likely to, sort of, 
encounter  a similar type of activity  or address similar 
types -- engage in similarly concerning  acts, the Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 40 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 41
indications  are legion, again, just from a cursory look at 
the defendant 's social media history.  
The question  is whether the defendant  has used 
social media to initiate  and facilitate  the defense in, for 
instance , a child pornography  context.  Here, the defendant  
has certainly  used social media with his platform s, his 
channels.  The very footage he's creating  is in order to be 
distributed  to those channels.  He's organizing  the 
confederates  on those channels.  He's providing  instructions  
about how to serve as decoys from vandalism  at the federal 
buildings .  Certainly  social media platforms  have proven to 
be a basis for him to initiate  and facilitate  certain 
offenses . 
The government  would also note obviously  -- again, 
none of these cases are precisely  on point but, also, the 
restrictions  we are talking about here are narrower and more 
narrowly  tailored  to the individual ; that there are cases -- 
I would just cite United States vs Love, 593 F.3d 1, a D.C. 
Circuit opinion from 2010, upholding , again, far broader but 
an internet  prohibition  for a defendant .  And I think some 
of the factors they consider  about this, whether or not -- 
even assuming  and recognizing  that there is a deprivation  of 
liberty -- whether or not that slightly  greater deprivation  
of liberty is reasonably  necessary  to deter illegal conduct 
and protect the public.  In this case, the government  would Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 41 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 42
submit that that is readily satisfied  based on the specific  
facts of this individual  and his specific  history of 
engagement  in social media.  
THE COURT:  What was the cite for that case you 
just mentioned , Ms. Wong?  
MS. WONG:  593 F.3d 1.  And there is a related 
opinion, Your Honor, called United States versus Legg, 
L-E-G-G, 713 F.3d 1129, another D.C. Circuit opinion.
But, again, just noting these are articulating  the 
general principles .  They did uphold prohibitions  in 
slightly  different  contexts but extrapolating  this principle  
to the case at hand.  
The government  does think that the requested  -- 
more narrowly -tailored  prohibition s being requested  are 
certainly  justified  as an arguably  greater deprivation  on 
liberty than might happen in the ordinary  course. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, Ms. Wong.  
And has -- is it correct to assume -- because what 
is being asked for here -- that Utah -- the state court 
where the other charge is pending -- has not imposed any 
restrictions  based on the alleged violent riot -- rioting 
that occurred  there?  
MS. WONG:  Your Honor, I am not aware of that.  
I did know that the AUSA in Utah was about to 
speak with the assigned  local prosecutor  to make them aware Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 42 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 43
of this arrest.  I don't -- I am not privy to those 
conversation s.  
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Mr. Kiersh, did you want to say anything  further 
in rebuttal ? 
MR. KIERSH:  Just a little bit of rebuttal  to the 
representations  of Ms. Wong.  
When I spoke about Mr. Sullivan 's perfect 
compliance , what I was talking about is his perfect 
compliance  with respect to appearing  for each and every 
court appearance .  I understand  that we had an issue of 
violations  that the Court ruled upon previously .  
But with respect to the limited issue of his 
complete  adherence  to his requirements  to appear faithfully  
at every court appearance , there is no question  that he has 
fulfilled  those responsibilities .  
I also want to talk a little bit about weapons.  
As far as I know and as far as the discovery  that 
I have received  so far, there is no allegation  whatsoever  
that Mr. Sullivan  was in possession  of a gun or any type of 
weapon regarding  the events of January 6th at the United 
States Capitol.  He is not charged with that.  There is 
nothing in the complaint  about that.  So I would ask the 
Court, respectfully , to please take that into account in the 
context of Ms. Wong's argument  that he's using Insurgence  to Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 43 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 44
promote violence .  
He was clearly not armed -- at least as far as I 
can see from the evidence  that I have been shown so far; and 
there is no suggestion  that he -- before he entered the 
Capitol or if he entered the Capitol that he was armed, or 
anything  like that.  So I would ask that you use that 
information  in evaluating  the government 's argument  that he 
was using Insurgence  as some sort of vehicle to promote 
violence .  
What one person -- for instance , Ms. Wong -- 
characterizes  a lot of his other uncharged conduct as being 
involved  in rioting, we characterize  it as being involved  in 
constitutionally  protected  freedom of assembly .  
There's no -- he has not been charged with any 
riotous conduct in Oregon.  He has not been charged with any 
criminal  conduct in California .  There was no reason why he 
was not permitted  -- if he was even present at those events; 
but he should not be punished  because the government  alleges 
that he was at an event in Oregon that became disruptive  or 
he should be punished  because he allegedly  was at an event 
in Los Angeles that became disruptive .  
He had every right, if he was there, to be there.  
And he had -- and this goes back to Ms. Wong's argument  
regarding  travel -- that he was a prolific  traveler in her 
argument  regarding  why he needs to be on GPS.  Again, if Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 44 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 45
Mr. Sullivan  chose and had the means to travel to Oregon, 
that's not a crime.  If he had the means and the desire to 
travel to Los Angeles or any other state in the country, 
that's not a crime.  
Now that he has been charged, there is a condition  
that we are not objecting  to regarding  that he seek 
permission  if he needs to travel out of state; that's fine.  
That's standard , and we can abide by that.  But to say that 
he needs to be on an ankle monitor because before this 
happened  he traveled  a lot is completely  inconsistent  with 
the statute that governs these proceedings .  
He is somebody  who -- again, if he desires to 
travel -- and we don't really see any need for that other 
than to meet with counsel to discuss his defense -- he'll go 
to his probation  officer and say:  I would like permission  
to travel to wherever  it is I am going.  If he violates  
that, there will be a violation  report issued.  So if that's 
the only reason for the GPS, we submit the government  hasn't 
met its standard  at all to impose this very, very 
restrictive  standard  -- this restrictive  condition  that he 
continue  to be placed -- continue  to have to be placed on 
ankle monitoring.  
I cannot account for why the lawyers who 
represented  Mr. Sullivan  in Utah agreed to some of these 
conditions .  I got into the case after the Utah Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 45 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 46
proceedings  -- after the Utah court proceedings  had 
concluded .  But ever since I have been on the case, we have 
been objecting  to these restrictions .  
And I haven't seen -- it hasn't been provided  to 
me yet -- the full length of Mr. Sullivan 's Twitter and 
Facebook  accounts , but I would -- it seems to me that he is 
using his Twitter and Facebook  accounts  not exclusively  for 
Insurgence ; he is using it for what every other person 
legitimately  uses it for.  
There is nothing -- he has not been charged with 
committing  any crime on Facebook  or Twitter or any encrypted  
site.  He is using those sites for legitimate  purposes .  
And, again, what the government  -- what Ms. Wong 
characterized  as riotous behavior , that's a legal 
definition ; that's not been adjudicated .  If he's using 
Facebook  or Twitter to say:  Hey, let's meet at a certain 
place, or there is going to be an assembly  of people at a 
certain place, let's get together  and go -- there is nothing 
illegal about that.  
I would agree that Mr. Sullivan  should be 
prohibited  from using social media to commit crimes; 
certainly  we are not going to object to that.  But because 
there's been nothing -- there is no evidence  that's been 
presented  to Your Honor to suggest that he used Insurgence  
USA to get people to the United States Capitol on Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 46 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 47
January 6th to commit crime -- there is nothing that the 
government  has presented  which would support that position .  
And unless and until the government  has evidence  that 
Mr. Sullivan  used Insurgence  USA to get people to 
Washington , D.C., to charge the Capitol -- to illegally 
enter the Capitol and commit the crimes that were committed  
in the Capitol, I would submit to the Court that the 
government  has not, by any standard , satisfied  its burden.  
So for all of the reasons stated in my memorandum  
and in my argument s today, we would ask the Court to not 
impose the conditions  that the government  has suggested  with 
the exception  of the few that we have agreed are acceptable  
and appropriate . 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Ms. Wong, did you want to respond any further?  
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  Just briefly on a few 
points.  
First, with respect to there not being any 
indication  or inference  of an indication  of a weapon in the 
complaint , that's not correct.  The defendant  is, as 
prescribed in the complaint  on camera, at multiple  points 
within the Capitol, stating -- describing  that he has a 
knife on him.  It is true that he has not been charged with 
a knife, but I would just note that for clarity of the 
record.  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 47 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 48
Secondly , I would note this complaint  is not the 
only analysis  here.  As Your Honor notes, the government  
sought detention  because they did believe that the defendant  
was a danger to the community .  The question  is whether 
there are conditions  which, in the government 's view, should 
include GPS monitoring  that would help suffice to provide 
that reasonable  assurance  that he will not pose that risk.
Finally, I would just note with respect to riots, 
riotous, rioting being the legal definition  -- that is the 
defendant 's own term; that is what the defendant  himself has 
celebrated .  When I speak of riots, that is not my gloss on 
it; that is the defendant  himself glorifying  riots in his 
tweets on December  26th.  Riots are meant to bring change 
and purge the world with fire.  
It's the defendant  himself on his footage in the 
Capitol on January 6th boasting  to others that:  I have been 
to too many riots; I have been in so many riots; I am ready, 
bro'.  And then later telling another individual  who is 
talking about people getting arrested :  You will be fine; 
that's why I'm a photographer .  It's only a little jail 
time; I do this all the time.  
That's why, at the end of the day, Your Honor, the 
government  would submit that it's a red herring whether or 
not -- and it's difficult  to prove here given the removal of 
his accounts , whether or not he was encouraging  people on Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 48 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 49
his specific  accounts  -- the other rioters to arrive on 
January 6th.  We know that that's the whole reason he was 
there on January 6; and we know that his justification  for 
the acts with which he has been charged -- that is his 
justification  for why he was saying:  Haul that MF'er out; 
why he was in the Speaker's Lobby persuading  those officers  
to leave their posts at the very scene where a woman 
fatefully  lost her life.  So, Your Honor, the defendant  was 
there because of his activities  with Insurgence  USA.  
Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, Ms. Wong.  
I am going to be mindful of the fact that we need 
to conclude  this by 5:15 -- by 6:15, which is still 
55 minutes away but, also, respect that I don't want to 
continue  this yet again; I would like to get the conditions  
out.  But I am going to take a brief recess to look over my 
notes on the requested  conditions , the areas of dispute.  I 
will also take a quick look at the two cases that Ms. Wong 
cited; and I will come back.  
If you want to -- if anyone else -- if anyone 
wants to take a break to stretch your legs, or whatever , I 
think it will take me about -- it will take me at least 
20 minutes; it may take me a little bit more.  So if you 
want to turn your cameras off and come back on in the 
vicinity  of 5:45, and if I am not ready to rule I will let Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 49 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 50
you know then. 
I am hoping that I will be able to rule on the 
release conditions  by that time.  
THE DEPUTY:  Okay, Your Honor. 
(Whereupon , a recess was taken, 5:22 to 5:52 p.m.)
THE DEPUTY:  Your Honor, we are back on the 
record.  
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  
I just have a question  for Ms. Wong and probably  
Mr. Cahoon.  The United States is requesting  the computer  
and internet  monitoring  program.
In the original  jurisdiction  -- in the arrest 
jurisdiction 's release conditions  there were tiers of 
internet  monitoring  that we -- I believe this one was placed 
in Appendix  A.  Are you asking that I use a similar -- if I 
approve internet  monitoring , which I am inclined  to do, are 
you asking that I specify one of those tiers recognizing  
that there will need to be some modifications  to the extent 
that the tiers would allow for bans on websites  to be set at 
pretrial 's discretion ?  
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  The government  would 
request the same Attachment  A.  
THE COURT:  Okay.  
And then a question  for pretrial  services  in Utah.  
Mr. Cahoon, there's been some argument  about a Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 50 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 51
request that Mr. Sullivan  submit himself or his vehicle or 
residence  to search on suspicion  of violations  or 
contraband .  Does pretrial  contend that it needs access to 
his residence  -- something  beyond the Appendix  A to be able 
to determine  if -- I guess to be able to monitor the 
devices?  
MR. CAHOON:  No, Your Honor.  
We can remotely  monitor the devices from the 
software  that we install on his -- excuse me -- from the 
software  that we install on media-approved  devices.  That 
other condition  would come when we would be conducting  
visits if we notice anything  that would suggest that he has 
other types of digital media or storage devices, or other 
internet  access capable devices that are not being monitored  
that we are unaware of. 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Mr. Kiersh, I know the defense has objected  to any 
requirement  that Mr. Sullivan  submit to search.  Would there 
also be an objection  to a requirement  that we allow pretrial  
services  to search if they have indication  that he has a 
device that is not authorized  under the monitoring ?  
MR. KIERSH:  Yes, Your Honor.  We would object to 
that for the reasons previously  set forth.  
THE COURT:  Thank you.    
Okay.  Having reviewed  the recommended  conditions , Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 51 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 52
the information  in the record, and the requests  and 
argument s from both the United States and the defense -- and 
I thank counsel on both sides for your detailed  presentation  
of the legal issues as well as the factual proffers 
presented  here.
I have a high-level summary, first, and then will 
go through it one by one.  At this time of the high-level 
summary, I am going to partially  grant the United States' 
request for release conditions .  
I am rejecting  home detention  and GPS monitoring  
because I don't believe either has been demonstrated  to be 
necessary  to protect the safety of the community  or assure 
Mr. Sullivan 's appearance  as required .  
I am rejecting  the recommended  condition  that 
Mr. Sullivan  avoid contact with named persons who are 
victims, witnesses , or codefendants  given that there appear 
to be no such readily identifiable  people in this case.  
I am rejecting  the request that he be evaluated  
for mental health given that I see nothing in the record 
that indicates  that this case -- distinguishes  this case 
from other cases before the Court in which no such 
evaluation  has been required  for people charged with similar 
crimes.
I am rejecting  the proposed  condition  that he 
submit his person, vehicle, or residence  to search upon Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 52 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 53
reasonable  suspicion  of contraband  or violation  of release 
conditions .
And I am rejecting  the broader prohibition  of 
Twitter and Facebook  and encrypted  social media platforms , 
but I am accepting  the alternative  proposal  to have more 
targeted  social media restrictions .  
With that said, specifically , I've conclude d that 
the release conditions  should be as follows:  
Mr. Sullivan  will be subject to courtesy  
supervision  by pretrial  services  in Utah -- the District  of 
Utah.  
He will also comply with internet  monitoring  
programs , Attachment  A, which I will clarify in the release 
papers -- I will have to go through it line by line to make 
sure there is nothing else -- there may be a few things that 
are different ; but I will note that to the extent that 
Attachment  A does give pretrial  services  the discretion  to 
add websites  to what is prohibited  and not hearing that 
or -- given the First Amendment  concerns  that have been 
raised here.  I don't want to delay it by trying to read out 
line for line while I scratch out -- it will be clear with 
the release order.  
So he is to be subject to internet  and computer  
monitoring  by pretrial  services .  
He is to maintain  his employment  -- jumping back Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 53 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 54
to the broader point.  I did not address the Insurgence  USA.  
I am granting  the request that he be prohibited  from working 
for Insurgence  USA.  
So going back to the list of conditions , he is to 
obtain or seek employment .  However, he is to no longer work 
for Insurgence  USA, which would include:  Promotions , 
affiliation s, marketing  -- or promotion s with Insurgence  
USA, InsurgenceUSA .com, or other iteration s of the entity.  
Essentially , all activities  regarding  Insurgence  USA are 
prohibited  except for paying taxes and maintaining  existing  
bank accounts .  
I realize that is an objected  to condition .  I 
find the proffers made by the USA regarding  specific  
Insurgence  USA promotion  of making weapons, bringing  weapons 
to protests is sufficient ; as well as the pending charges in 
the state of Utah are sufficient  to warrant such a 
restriction  in this case.  We'll note that it is unusual and 
more restrictive  than has been present in other 
Capitol-related cases that I have seen or that have appeared 
before me. 
He is not to travel outside the state of Utah 
without prior permission  from pretrial  services .  He is not 
to travel outside the continental  United States without 
prior court approval .  
He is to report on a regular basis to his Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 54 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 55
supervising  officer with pretrial  services  in Utah as 
directed  by that pretrial  services  agency.  
He is not to possess any firearms, ammunition , or 
explosive  devices.  He is to surrender  any passports  not 
applied for or obtain new passports .  
In terms of specific  social media restrictions , he 
is not -- I am not prohibiting  Twitter and Facebook  or 
encrypted  social media platforms .  I am prohibiting  him 
using any social media platforms  to incite a riot or to 
promote or advocate  for violent protests, unlawful  protests, 
armed conflict , or violence .  
He is to appear in court as required .  He is not 
to commit any state or federal crimes.  And he is to verify 
his residence  and notify pretrial  services  in advance of any 
proposed  change of residence .
I realize I didn't accept all of the conditions  
that the United States recommended .  
But, Ms. Wong, are there any conditions  that you 
recommended  that I just have not addressed  at all?  
MS. WONG:  Your Honor, did you address the 
narcotics  provision ?  
THE COURT:  I did not. 
MS. WONG:  I believe that's the only one. 
THE COURT:  Mr. Kiersh, my notes are not clear on 
your position  on narcotics .  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 55 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 56
I wrote down that you said he doesn't need them so 
it's not an issue.  By saying "it's not an issue" do you 
mean it's not an issue that warrants  a condition  or it's not 
an issue that warrants  an objection ?  
MR. KIERSH:  Well, I don't believe it's an issue 
that warrants  further discussion  because Mr. Sullivan  is not 
a narcotics  user, and it's not something  that's ever going 
to come into play in this case.  So if anybody is in 
possession  of an illegal substance  they're going to be held 
accountable .  There is no reason to suspect Mr. Sullivan  is 
going to be involved  in that type of activity , so I don't 
believe it's a necessary  issue that needs a resolution  by 
the Court. 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Ms. Holman or Mr. Cahoon, is not using any 
unlawful  narcotics  -- is that a standard  condition  when Utah 
is doing courtesy supervision ?  
MR. CAHOON:  This is Josh Cahoon, Your Honor.  
Not normally , unless there is a potential  that the 
defendant  may or may not -- or may be trying to abuse drugs, 
then we would request that condition  as well as a drug 
testing condition  to supplement  it. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Cahoon.  
So I will not impose a prohibition  on narcotics  or 
controlled  substance s recognizing , of course, that the Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 56 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 57
general prohibition  against violating  the law would apply.  
Mr. Kiersh, are any of those conditions  -- I 
recognize , of course, you may appeal.  But are there any 
conditions  that you wanted me to further explain to 
Mr. Sullivan  or to you for that matter?  
MR. KIERSH:  Thank you, Your Honor.  
I believe that Mr. Sullivan  and I have an 
understanding .  I will speak with Mr. Sullivan  later on.  
We'll find out whether or not he does.  
He understands  the nature of the proceedings  and 
he understands  the nature -- I am confident  he understands  
the nature of the Court's ruling.  
My only question  is whether or not Mr. Sullivan  
and Mr. Cahoon should discuss between themselves  how to 
remove the ankle monitor and just the logistics  of turning 
it in. 
THE COURT:  Mr. Cahoon. 
MR. CAHOON:  Yes, Your Honor.  
I will have him -- as soon as the hearing is 
concluded , he can turn off the device; and I will pick it 
up, and all associated  equipment , from him tomorrow .  
It is no longer a condition  of release.  We don't 
want it on him any longer than is reasonably  needed.  So as 
soon as the proceeding  is over he can cut it off.  I will 
terminate  the condition  of the GPS monitor and pick up all Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 57 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 58
equipment  tomorrow . 
MR. KIERSH:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Does pretrial  -- Ms. Holman, you may be preparing  
the papers.  Does pretrial  need any further clarification  
from me on any of these, recognizing  that you can also 
follow up with my chambers  as you're working on the draft 
order?  
MS. HOLMAN:  No, Your Honor.  
You answered  my only question .  I didn't know 
if -- Your Honor has stated that she would be issuing an 
order or do you want pretrial  to fill out the order?  
THE COURT:  If you could send us your draft as you 
typically  do, we will take care of any adjustments  to that 
Attachment  A on internet  monitoring , and -- that's my 
intention .  If, after looking at this, you think the 
other -- you think deviating  from that would make sense, you 
can follow up with my law clerk, and we can figure it out. 
MS. HOLMAN:  Okay, Your Honor.  
MS. WONG:  Does Your Honor need Attachment  A?  
Mr. Cahoon just emailed it to me a few days ago. 
THE COURT:  I have it from the original  hearing, I 
believe.  Well, I have it from -- maybe if you can send it.  
I have what was attached  to the Utah court which I 
was guessing  was the same -- somehow it ended up before me; Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 58 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 59
but just to make sure I am working from the same document  
and not something  outdated, it would be helpful if you send 
it to my chambers ' account.  
Thank you. 
MR. KIERSH:  Just for my clarity, with respect to 
Twitter and Facebook , Mr. Sullivan  can use Twitter and 
Facebook , he just can't use it to incite a riot or other 
criminal  endeavor s; is that correct?  
THE COURT:  Right.  He can't use it to incite a 
riot, a violent protest, unlawful  protest, armed conflict , 
or violence . 
MR. KIERSH:  Thank you.  
MR. CAHOON:  Your Honor, this is Josh Cahoon.  
I wanted to clarify one thing. 
THE COURT:  Yes.  
MR. CAHOON:  As far as the computer  and internet  
monitoring  goes, it would be my understanding  then that we 
would open up all avenues of internet  access for the 
defendant  as long as they are approved  and monitored  
devices; and we will be monitoring  the internet  activity  and 
other activity  associated  with those -- specifically  for 
those reasons you stated, for inciting  a riot, violent armed 
conflict  -- of that nature, correct?  
THE COURT:  Is that something  you can do if it's 
not in specific  platforms ?  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 59 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 60
MR. CAHOON:  That is something  that we can do.  
It's time consuming .  It's intensive  supervision , Your 
Honor, but it is something  that we can do.  
THE COURT:  So I was saying not doing that on 
social media platforms .  Let me clarify.  
Ms. Wong, I know you presented  that as an 
alternative .  I can't tell from my notes.  Was that specific  
social media sites?  I mean, can we target that to -- was 
that for Twitter and Facebook , or was it for some others as 
well?  
MS. WONG:  Our proposal  was that this would be 
across all platforms  if we were just focused on that. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  
That's what I will do.  
If that becomes unworkable , it probably  will go to 
Judge Sullivan  as opposed to me.  If that becomes 
unworkable , perhaps there can be a request to modify the 
conditions  to facilitate  the monitoring .  
MR. CAHOON:  Thank you, Your Honor.  
We can flag specific  key words that may help us so 
that any time those key words are presented  in any of the 
data it would notify us to then investigate  further, so we 
can do that as well. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  
MR. KIERSH:  Your Honor, with respect to the Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 60 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 61
internet  monitoring , Mr. Sullivan  and I have privileged  
communication s over the internet  via electronic  now; and I 
certainly  don't want any communication s -- Mr. Sullivan  
certainly  would object to any communication s between himself 
and me being read or in any way considered  by anyone.  I 
mean, it should just be between the two of us as part of our 
confidential  relationship . 
THE COURT:  Mr. Cahoon, is there a way to exclude 
certain email accounts  from the search, the keyword search?  
MR. CAHOON:  Not generally .  
I will dig into it and see if there is a way so 
that we can block -- so that we don't even see any of the 
communication  between defense counsel and his client.  If 
those things do come up, it is our practice  to not even read 
them and to just dismiss them in their entirety  so that we 
do not disrupt that privilege  that they have between one 
another. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  
MR. KIERSH:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Okay.  With that, Mr. Kiersh, can I have my 
courtroom  deputy swear Mr. Sullivan  to his conditions  to 
make sure everything  is on the up and up. 
MR. KIERSH:  Yes, Your Honor.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Ms. Kay, would you please swear Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 61 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 62
Mr. Sullivan  to his conditions . 
THE DEPUTY:  Yes, Your Honor.  
Mr. Sullivan , would you please raise your right 
hand?  
(Whereupon , the defendant  was sworn to the 
conditions  of release.)  
THE DEFENDANT :  I do.  
THE DEPUTY:  Thank you.  
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Mr. Sullivan , can you confirm for the record that 
you have heard and understood  the conditions  that you just 
agreed to follow?  
THE DEFENDANT :  I do swear -- 
THE COURT:  I couldn't hear you. 
THE DEFENDANT :  I do understand  the conditions . 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Do the parties have a next court date before 
Judge Sullivan  already?  You do. 
MS. WONG:  Yes, Your Honor.  This Thursday . 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Is there anything  else 
regarding  release conditions  that we need to address before 
we adjourn?  
MS. WONG:  No, Your Honor.  Thank you.  
MR. KIERSH:  Not on behalf of Mr. Sullivan .  
Thank you.  Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 62 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 63
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  
And thank you, again, to pretrial  for making 
yourself  available .  The Court will coordinate  with pretrial  
to get the release order; and we will provide a copy of that 
to counsel.
That concludes  this matter.  
Mr. Sullivan  is released  under the conditions  
stated on the record.  
Well -- I am sorry.  I need to do a couple of 
warnings .  
Mr. Sullivan , I did release you under the 
conditions  of release.  The paperwork  will say this as well, 
but if you violate the release conditions , you could find 
yourself  facing revocation  proceedings  as you did when you 
first appeared  before me.  There could be another motion to 
hold you in custody while you're awaiting  trial; they could 
issue a warrant for your arrest; there can be negative  
consequences .  
Also, if you commit any crimes while you are on 
release -- in addition  to any penalties  you face for that 
crime, you may face an additional  penalty for having 
committed  a crime while on release.  
Finally, you are required  to appear in court as 
directed  while you are on pretrial  release.  Your failure to 
appear in court as directed  could also lead to -- could lead Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 63 of 641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 64
to a warrant for your arrest or revocation  of your release, 
or your detention  pending trial.  These warnings  will also 
be in the release order that we will provide.  
Thank you.  
That concludes  this hearing.  You are all excused.  
Have a good evening. 
THE DEFENDANT :  Thank you. 
(Whereupon , the hearing concludes , 6:13 p.m.)
CERTIFICATE
I, ELIZABETH  SAINT-LOTH, RPR, FCRR, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing  constitutes  a true and accurate  
transcript  of my stenographic  notes, and is a full, true, 
and complete  transcript  of the proceedings  to the best of my 
ability.
PLEASE NOTE:  This hearing was held via 
videoconference  and telephonically  in compliance  with the 
COVID-19 pandemic  stay-safer-at-home orders and is therefore  
subject to the limitations  associated  with the use of 
technology , including  but not limited to telephone  signal 
interference , static, signal interruptions , and other 
restrictions  and limitations  associated  with remote court 
reporting  via telephone , speakerphone , and/or 
videoconferencing  capabilities .
This certificate  shall be considered  null and void 
if the transcript  is disassembled  in any manner by any party 
without authorization  of the signatory  below. 
Dated this 15th day of March, 2021.
/s/ Elizabeth  Saint-Loth, RPR, FCRR
Official  Court ReporterCase 1:21-cr-00078-EGS   Document 22   Filed 03/27/21   Page 64 of 64