Thread by @ZoeTillman

Hello from Judge Amit Mehta's virtual courtroom, where an arraignment/status hearing is about to get underway in what are now three Oath Keepers cases — the new seditious conspiracy case, the non-sedition conspiracy case, and Jonathan Walden's case

Prev: buzzfeednews.com/article/kenben…

Here's the dial-in info for Mehta:
Toll Free Number: 877-848-7030
Access Code: 3218747

Mehta begins by making sure the incarcerated defendants who are present (Stewart Rhodes, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Kelly Meggs) can all hear okay, they confirm they can. Edward Vallejo, who is also in custody, is not present for this hearing, his lawyer is on the line

Next order of business is confirming who is currently representing Jessica Watkins. She's had a lawyer from the DC federal defender office, but now has retained counsel, so the judge notes that change

Next, the prosecutor formally dismisses the original conspiracy indictment against the nine defendants included in the new seditious conspiracy indictment along with Rhodes and Vallejo

AUSA Kathryn Rakoczy is now summarizing the counts in the seditious conspiracy indictment and the original conspiracy case, in advance for defendants being arraigned. It's a lot to summarize, and Mehta cuts it short, saying they'll go over details as people are arraigned

The seditious conspiracy defendants are arraigned first. Stewart Rhodes' lawyer says he pleads not guilty to the indictment (we would expect that initial plea of not guilty absent a defendant cutting a deal with the government in advance)

As expected, defendants indicted in the Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy case enter initial pleas of not guilty (Vallejo isn't present, Kelly Meggs waiting on his lawyer). Next, defendants in the original Oath Keepers conspiracy case are being arraigned on the superseding indictment

Deleted prev. tweet that said all defendants present in Oath Keepers cases entered not guilty pleas. The line is fuzzy so this wasn't 100% clear, but squares with what I thought I heard:

https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1486017872442929155

So rest except Beeks (and Vallejo, not present) pleaded not guilty

Next, Mehta is going over whether defense attys/defendants have access to the evidence dot com database. Incarcerated defs Kelly Meggs/Kenneth Harrelson say they haven't seen copies of protective order they need to sign for access, AUSA says Jessica Watkins prev. signed it

AUSA says a lot of discovery has already been produced to the previously charged defendants, and they expect to turn over more in the next 4-6 weeks, including civilian witness interview reports, searches of devices and accounts belonging to noncharged people/witnesses

AUSA says there are continued discussions with defense lawyers representing defs in the Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy case about whether anyone wants to plead guilty, says it's possible the new indictment may change the "perspective"of some defendants re: what they want to do

AUSA says her sense is that among defense lawyers for incarcerated defs there is now a preference for the July trial date versus the original plan for them to go in April (Kelly Meggs/Harrelson/Watkins are now all in the new seditious conspiracy case)

Stewart Rhodes' lawyer says the July trial date would work for them

Mehta says he would prefer to keep the April trial date, mindful of the fact that the original Oath Keepers case has been pending for a long time, and asks lawyers in the original case (now called Crowl) how they feel about that. Response is very negative...

Defense lawyers in the Crowl case note the Rhodes indictment is relevant to their case and is more evidence to work through even if defendants were removed, the superseding indictment adds counts, there are schedule conflicts

Mehta says this won't be welcome news, but he's going to keep the April 19 trial date for six of the seven defendants in the Crowl case (Beeks was added late, Mehta says not realistic to expect him to be ready by April, Crowl is tentative depending on lawyer's schedule issue)

(Would note that Kenneth Harrelson's lawyer Bradford Geyer has several times tried to speak over Mehta, including during this latest exchange about the April trial date, and Mehta told him to cut it out, noting his client isn't even in that case anymore)

One of the defense lawyers jumps in (it was hard to hear who it is) to say he has to try again to argue for a delay of the April trial date, says this is not an "ordinary case," largest in DOJ history, best interest of justice, fairness, parties to push it back

Mehta says he is "sympathetic" but the "core discovery" has been with defense lawyers for months, and he understands the govt is still producing evidence, but the trial date is still three months away, he's not going to disturb it

Mehta says that everyone in the seditious conspiracy case should be on notice that July 11 is tentatively their trial date (will depend on whether anyone pleads, and they may need to split it up to a second date if there are still a lot of defendants who want to go to trial)

The backup trial date for the July trial group is Sept. 26, Mehta says

As for Jonathan Walden, his lawyer says he hasn't had a chance to speak with the govt yet about next steps since his case got splintered off from the rest, so Mehta sets a status conference date for next month, no trial date yet

Rhodes' lawyer says that whoever loses the detention fight that's pending before a Texas magistrate judge plans to appeal to Mehta, Mehta says to contact chambers once the judge there rules

Thomas Caldwell's lawyer says they need to research new counts in the seditious conspiracy indictment, potentially file motions to dismiss. Mehta sets a deadline of Feb. 25 (maybe 26? fuzzy line still), says things he already ruled on in the original OK case will get carried over

Sandra Parker's lawyer John Machado, who got dinged a bit by other defense attys in Crowl for being more deferential to Mehta about the April trial date, asks what happens if there's another superseding indictment. Mehta says if things change, they'll address it then

Bennie Parker's lawyer Stephen Brennwald notes his client/other defs in these cases are named in DC AG's civil suit re: Jan. 6, worried about deadlines in that case while the crim cases are pending, may seek extensions. Mehta is assigned to the DC case, says he'll look into it

Notable housekeeping: Mehta says the defendants from the original Oath Keepers who were already granted pretrial release and are now in the seditious conspiracy case will remain on release, subject to the same conditions

They're discussing potential conflict issues re: Jonathan Moseley's past representation of Rhodes and his current representation of codefendant Kelly Meggs, plus Moseley potentially repping Rhodes before the Jan. 6 committee, Mehta says he has concerns, asks for a filed update

Rhodes' lawyer Phillip Linder says he needs to visit with Rhodes and find out what his client's intentions are as far as who is representing him for what

Next issue Mehta addresses: Juli Haller reps Connie Meggs in the crim case and her husband Kelly Meggs in a civil case, judge appointed outside atty Andrew Wise to probe potential conflict. Wise says he doesn't believe there's a present conflict, the Meggs understand the issues

If Juli Haller's name sounds familiar — she had been involved in Sidney Powell's postelection "Kraken" case in federal court in Michigan and is appealing the sanctions order entered against that team of lawyers

And that's a wrap on today's hearing in the Oath Keepers cases. A lot of significant scheduling — we're on for an April trial — a glimpse at some potential defense strategies re: the sedition case, and the prosecutor making clear that the door is open for plea negotiations