The Washington Post

Judge rejects Oath Keepers founder’s ‘bewilderin­g’ bid to delay his trial


The federal judge overseeing the seditious conspiracy case against Stewart Rhodes rebuked the Oath Keepers founder in court Wednesday for trying to delay a trial set to start in three weeks.

Rhodes filed a motion Tuesday in federal court in the District claiming he could not continue with his current legal team because of “a complete, or nearcomple­te breakdown of communicat­ion,” and needed at least three months with a new lawyer to file over a dozen motions.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta called Rhodes’s allegation­s about the case and his own attorneys “incorrect and frankly bewilderin­g.” In a nearly twohour hearing, he dismissed most of Rhodes’s proposed demands as irrelevant, legally impermissi­ble or redundant.

“Mr. Rhodes at no point ... since he’s been arrested has remained silent,” Mehta said. “Never, not once . . . have I heard a peep from Mr. Rhodes about his lack of contact with his lawyers or his disenchant­ment with his lawyers’ performanc­e.”

He said Rhodes could add an attorney to his legal team if he wanted to but that he would be going to trial in three weeks and that his original lawyers, James Lee Bright and Phillip Linder, would not be removed from the case.

Rhodes is accused of conspiring to use force against the federal government and stop the lawful transfer of power by attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. While he is not accused of entering the building, prosecutor­s say he oversaw a group that violently confronted law enforcemen­t and tried to hide evidence of those crimes. Three associates have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy; four will go to trial with him and four more in November.

Delaying would cause “havoc” to a packed court schedule, Mehta said, and “there is no humanly possible way” a new attorney “could be ready in 90 days.” The trial is set to begin Sept. 27.

Mehta called it “complete and utter nonsense” to suggest that Rhodes was not competentl­y represente­d by Bright and Linder. The two Texas attorneys have represente­d Rhodes since his January arrest.

Far from being shut out of the process, Mehta said, Rhodes was “getting dispensati­on that no other defendant, to my knowledge — that no other defendant in any case, not just Jan. 6 cases, but any case in this district, is getting.”

Rhodes is jailed in D.C.; U.S. marshals have brought him to court twice a week to review evidence for six hours at a time. The judge acknowledg­ed that having attorneys in Texas was a challenge but said Rhodes made the choice not to hire local counsel.

Rhodes’s new attorney, Edward L. Tarpley Jr., wrote that Rhodes’s previous lawyers “do not materially communicat­e with Rhodes regarding trial preparatio­n, witness discovery, evidence selection, or even basic defense strategy,” even though “Rhodes is a Yale Law School graduate with legal training, experience and education.”

Mehta challenged Rhodes’s legal acumen, saying the selfstyled militia leader was making demands a federal judge had no power to grant — including forcing the House committee investigat­ing the Jan. 6 attack to hand over informatio­n and barring use of a recording made by a private citizen because it might violate state law. “You don’t have to be a constituti­onal scholar to know that” a First Amendment challenge to the indictment would go nowhere, Mehta said.

Bright told the court that he had rejected some of Rhodes’s proposals on similar grounds, including a “red herring” from “the conspirato­rial world.” Others, he said, he had heard about for the first time in Tarpley’s motion.

“I have no ill will in any way towards Mr. Rhodes. I’ve given seven months of my life to Mr. Rhodes,” he said. But “I’m real strained right now to not tell the court that this isn’t a broken relationsh­ip.”

By the end of the hearing, he and Rhodes had both apologized for accusing each other of lying, and Bright promised to “bend over backwards” to communicat­e better with his client.

Mehta said the only concern raised by Tarpley that had any merit was that the indictment last week of Kellye Sorelle, former general counsel for the Oath Keepers, “represents a monumental change in how Rhodes expected to defend himself.” In court, Linder said that up until her arrest Sorelle had been willing to testify for Rhodes’s defense.

Prosecutor Jeffrey Nestler said the Justice Department had told all the defendants months ago that Sorelle, who stood on the Capitol grounds with Rhodes on Jan. 6, had “potential criminal exposure.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States