A federal judge only last week explained to Oath Keeper leader Elmer Rhodes at length why his request to delay his Sept. 27 seditious conspiracy trial would be flatly denied. But with that trial just around the corner, Rhodes is throwing anything that might stick against the wall and has asked for another delay as well as the appointment of a special master to help him review evidence.
The special master request echoes the delay tactics playing out in the Justice Department’s classified records removal case involving President Donald Trump.
Important to note: This motion in Rhodes’ case was filed by attorney Ed Tarpley Jr. Rhodes unsuccessfully tried to substitute Tarpley for his longtime current attorneys, Philip Linder and James Bright, only last week.
Presiding U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta refused to let Tarpley come aboard as his only official representation since the trial is just weeks away, and Tarpley himself conceded—after some equivocation—that, in fact, he would not be able to prepare a defense for Rhodes in time.
At that same hearing, Bright and Linder strongly defended themselves from accusations of misconduct by Rhodes, and Bright even went so far as to accuse Rhodes of lying about their alleged lack of support in preparing for his case. But after brief mediation with Mehta, a solution was reached: Judge Mehta agreed to let Tarpley sit at the defense’s table during the trial, but that would be the extent of it, he said.
Given the recent and very terse dressing down of Rhodes’ push to delay the seditious conspiracy trial yet again—Rhodes has tried to secure a delay at least twice before—it is exceedingly unlikely that presiding Judge Mehta will grant this request in full.
Motion for Special Master and Delay of Trial by Daily Kos on Scribd
RELATED STORY: Judge won’t delay trial for Oath Keeper Elmer Rhodes during tense hearing
Tarpley has argued that Rhodes has only had “meaningful” access to discovery for two months since his indictment nearly a year ago and his imprisonment at a jail in Alexandria, Virginia.
Mehta has been patient though mostly unsympathetic to these assertions of late. He noted last week that it was Rhodes who opted to hire Texas-based attorneys who live several hundred miles away from where he is currently imprisoned. Mehta also noted that Tarpley is based in Louisiana, making his request all the more empty as he has failed to hire anyone local.
But according to the 10-page motion filed by Tarpley on Tuesday, the only fair solution now is to delay the trial and have Judge Mehta appoint a special master to help the former leader of the extremist network sort through an undeniably massive amount of evidence underpinning the case.
Tarpley did not immediately return a request for comment to Daily Kos on Tuesday. Nor did attorneys James Bright or Philip Linder.
On Monday, Tarpley also filed another motion. This one seeks to suppress at trial any recording or transcript of a Nov. 9, 2020, GoTo meeting where Rhodes lamented that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and then instructed Oath keepers to go to Washington, D.C.
“It will be a bloody and desperate fight. We are going to have a fight. That can’t be avoided,” Rhodes said on the Nov. 9 call.
On the same call, Rhodes said told members of the group: “Let’s go to D.C. together. I’ll be right there with you. I want my bikers, I want my fucking street fighters. I want my brawlers.”
Per the transcript, Rhodes told his fellow Oath Keepers they “swore an oath” and that they “had to” fight.
“So we have a chance to get President Trump to fight as commander-in-chief,” Rhodes continued. “If you’re going to have a fight, guys, you want to start now while he’s still commander-in-chief. You do not want to waste this opportunity.”
Rhodes has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges lodged against him.
Tarpley has requested an oral argument before Mehta to weigh this request.
He also alleges that whoever recorded the Nov. 9, 2020, GoTo meeting was not “an invited member of the conversation.” This, he contends, means that consent-to-recording laws may have been violated since Oath Keepers were participating in the conference call from various states.
Further, Tarpley claims: “It is not evident how much of the conversation was lost before the recording began. However, certainly, any introduction or explanation for the purpose of the meeting was lost. The introduction explaining the purpose of the meeting would be necessary to interpret the later contents, not just theoretically but specifically necessary for this conversation when the contents are read or listened to.”
This matter has been raised before with another Oath Keeper facing seditious conspiracy, Thomas Caldwell. Tarpley took issue with the government’s refusal in that case to identify the person who recorded the meeting. Tarpley has suggested it was an “active informant” and that illegal wiretapping may have occurred.
Tarpley Rhodes Motion to Suppress Evidence Nov 9 Call by Daily Kos on Scribd
Tarpley has also requested that Rhodes is severed from his co-defendants. Mehta strongly indicated he was not at all inclined to do so at the motion hearing last week but noted that the request had not yet been formally entered on the docket.
In a motion filed on Sept. 12, Tarpley asked that Rhodes be allowed to stand trial alone or be permitted to face jurors when another group of Oath Keepers, led by defendant Donovan Crowl, go to trial on Nov. 10. The Justice Department has already told Tarpley it is opposed to the request.
Tarpley argues that by placing Rhodes on trial with Crowl and others, Rhodes would be given more time to prepare, and so would he.
Rhodes is not charged with breaching the U.S. Capitol. Instead, prosecutors have charged him with seditious conspiracy for his alleged role in leading and organizing what amounted to armed paramilitary training for members he called on to stop the transfer of power by Congress on Jan. 6. Rhodes, prosecutors say, also oversaw the formation and deployment of a “quick reaction force” to attack the Capitol.
Rhodes has denied any wrongdoing and entered a not guilty plea shortly after his arrest in Texas on Jan. 13.
This February, when Judge Mehta detained him ahead of trial, he stressed that Rhodes was a “danger” to the public. Rhodes wasn’t in his current predicament because he simply made questionable public statements about the outcome of the 2020 election while exercising his First Amendment.
There was strong evidence to suggest that Rhodes was willing to back up his words with actions, Mehta noted.
As noted in Politico at the time, Mehta remarked that it was “unlikely that Mr. Rhodes at a minimum did not know about, if not encourage, if not order” people to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Prosecutors say that literal moments before Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs proceeded to lead a stack formation of Oath Keepers over police barriers, up the stairs, and into the Capitol, Rhodes had talked to Meggs by phone.
This contact seemed “awfully coincidental” to Mehta during a hearing in February.
After all, Oath Keepers as a whole, the judge said, “are not people who do things without orders.”